Well said. the past is another place. They do things differently there.

Roger

On 9/19/06, Kasper <[log in to unmask]> 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 personally I find that opinion to be an outdated & unrealistic one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
>


-- 
http://www.badstep.net/
http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
Suspicion breeds confidence