I can agree with much of what you say without accepting the
Hughes/Coleridge thing, or for that matter the onwards and upwards
thing. Poetry changes, which is not the same as improves. Coleridge
stands up pretty well, and I'd rather read Christabel any day than
any or all of Hughes.
At 05:47 PM 9/19/2006, you wrote:
>Jon, a bit of a response:
>
>"First, poetry is fundamentally an
>oral art; it's only a written art in degenerate poetic eras like ours.
>(What power can a *written* mantra have? It's only marks on paper. Or when
>you feel the need to pray, do you rummage around for a pencil and paper?)"
>
>personally I find that opinion to be an outdated & unrealistic one
>(though I respect your right & ability to see it differently).
>'poetry' as it is written today cannot be called oral by nature, in my
>opinion; not all poetry is written to be spoken. I certainly agree
>that all poetry is AURAL by nature, with few exceptions in
>postmodernism, but to call 'poetry' _oral_ is an absolutely massive
>overstatement to me. I, for instance, don't write my poems in order
>for them to be read aloud, but to be read. one reads a poem 'aloud' to
>oneself in any case, whether they pronounce the words or not; this
>isn't basis enough, i.m.o., to call it oral.
>also, isn't calling the state of modern poetry degenerate a little
>overappreciative of 'the good old days'? surely poetry is evolving,
>rather than degenerating; why would anyone consider the possibilities
>of poetry a century ago better than its possibilities & functions
>today? language & imagery are being taken to their furthest heights
>thanks to the teachings & openings of modern literature; when one
>looks at Ted Hughes & at Samuel Taylor Coleridge, surely the former is
>the more pleasing & challenging to the imagination, especially in
>terms of language & its referents/connotations?
>
>in reply to your query: What power can a *spoken* mantra have? It's
>only sounds in the air.
>words, whether spoken or written, are arbitrary. language as an
>arbitrary system does reflect (& is reflected) in thought, but isn't
>it the ideas of the prayer or the mantra that are most important?
>also, a prayer or a mantra cannot be compared to poetry; to them
>language is arbitrary (because they only seek to convey thought), to
>poetry it is not (because it seeks to convey both thought &
>aesthetic).
>
>in these 'degenerate' days all that has changed is that written
>poetry, because of its worth as an entire aspect of poetry, has come
>to be distinguished from the spoken variety. the spoken variety is
>called many things; spoken word, slam poetry, performance poetry.. if
>anything, this 'degenerate' era is making the state of oral poetry
>more aware of itself & its power.
>plus, in the end it's the choice of the author whether to perform
>their work or not. there are poems that work fantastically on paper,
>but which fare less well when spoken; & vice versa. one rule of thumb,
>possibly, is that a poem should work as well as possible in BOTH
>formats -- but it isn't, to me, a guideline that makes or breaks the
>_quality_ of a poem.
>
>to return to your prayer-example, I would actually have to say Yes,
>when I want to pray I reach for a pencil & some paper. prayer is an
>activity that works from dedication, belief, ability to concentrate &
>contextualise (to create, or see, the prayer-world) -- that isn't very
>different to the way I write, except that more occurs intuitively. &
>that prayer is not a creative act _in the same way_ as a poem is.
>
>K S
|