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personally I find that opinion to be an outdated & unrealistic one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
|