Oh, well, actually I like Geraldine's poem, which I've
previously read, and don't find that she 'exploits'
Donne though there are moments where the repetition of
the 'no' and 'the body' seem to have a sort of
dissipating effect.
On the other hand, I have wondered at this issue of
collaboration with the dead ever since I read Lucie
Brock-Broidio's _Master Letters_ which is based upon
Emily Dickinson's 'master' letters, or Amy Clampitt's
poems on Keats or Lynda Hull's poems on Tolstoi, or
Edward Hirsch's poems on Weil. I guess it could be
argued that the principle of post-modernism is
cannablism, that all texts even those by exceptional
writers, are meat to be digressed, digested into new
cells. And what's the difference/s between Monk
collaborating with Donne or David's recent version of
Ungaretti or Stephen's 'Sappho' and 'Stein' poems
which may bear little or varying degrees to the
original and use it as a springboard? So in that
sense, I guess I wonder more at Monk's essay that
accompanies the collaboration, is it because she is
collaborating with the texts of canonical male writers
and so has to create a framework to do so?
> the Donne poem
> she exploits has no direct connection with what
> she's writing about,
Does this matter? for instance, I thought David's
'Ungaretti' version at times had little direct
connection with the original.
> in the second it is not a good idea to extensively
> quote someone who
> is so obviously a better writer, the whole thing
> reads to me like
> petulant graffitti
Well, all I can say is that it didn't seem like
'petulant graffitti', and I do think I've had enough
of my share of 'petulant graffitti' to know what it
is. Anyway, this is just my take on it, I am not
making some Universal Law, so feel free to disregard
if it gets your goat,
best,
Rebecca
--- Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ah, a lesson in etiquette. My mind had skipped over
> all that, which I
> read as an attempt to understand the why of a poem
> that Dave couldn't
> otherwise decipher rather than as a comment on
> Geraldine's
> personality structure in general. You seem to have
> remembered the
> parts I forgot and forgotten the parts I remember,
> like "Not a good
> idea on Geraldine's part I'd say: in the first place
> the Donne poem
> she exploits has no direct connection with what
> she's writing about,
> in the second it is not a good idea to extensively
> quote someone who
> is so obviously a better writer, the whole thing
> reads to me like
> petulant graffitti," which is perhaps impatient but
> is certainly a
> comment on the process of the poem and precedes the
> things you note.
> I have no idea, based on what I read, whether
> there's animus involved
> or just more of that impatience.
>
> I'm looking forward to Geraldine's NY reading. I'm
> very intrerested
> in reading as performance but totally uninterested
> in poetry as
> performance. Somebody said it in this discussion--if
> it doesn't work
> on the page it's something, but not poetry. What I
> hope for--what I
> always hope for--is a reading that enlightens me
> about how to read.
>
> Mark
>
> At 06:43 PM 2/14/2006, you wrote:
> >On 15/2/06 9:52 AM, "Mark Weiss"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Your point being that some critical commentary
> > > engages, is useful, others not? Is the criterion
> > > whether or not you agree with it?
> >
> >No; my point is that comments like "Geraldine's
> desire to be noticed" or
> >accusations that she "splatters her ego" over
> Donne; or indeed that she is
> >writing "extortions" rather than poems, and snide
> comments about her and
> >Alan Halsey's "small business", seem to me to be
> directed towards the author
> >rather than to the poem itself.
> >
> >Personally, I enjoy the music and rhythms that
> Geraldine has made with her
> >collaging of Donne, and the slippages of meaning
> between the two
> >sensibilities. They are also, as she says, quite
> fond homages and
> >expressions of admiration for those poets. I don't
> take it amiss if nobody
> >else thinks the same; that is their right and I
> don't expect people to agree
> >with me. But I can't see how clear personal animus
> is a useful basis for
> >literary criticism.
> >
> >Best
> >
> >A
> >
> >Alison Croggon
> >
> >Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> >Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
> >Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|