Mark, you're right of course; that part of my reply was quite rash.
objectively speaking all that is occuring is change, rather than
improvement. it's just that as a witness of / participant in the
change, I can't really help but see it as positive. :)
KS
On 20/09/06, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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personally I find that opinion to be an outdated & unrealistic one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
>
|