I wonder if we're all missing the point a bit? Colin mentioned in his 
original post that he was wondering about writing up this idea as a poem and 
gave us an outline of what he had  in mind. I found it interesting to see 
what was forming in his head, also felt quite touched that he trusted enough 
to let us see this, and wondered what he would make of a final attempt, what 
would emerge. I feel it's rather different from giving us an introduction, 
pre or post,  to an already  written poem as he states that he's not yet 
written the poem. In fact he seems to be pondering as to whether the idea is 
worth running with (if I have read his post correctly). Most definitely it 
is. Any idea is worth following up. It can be discarded later if it doesn't 
work.
The response has been very varied but I would like to make it clear to Colin 
that I actually admired his courage in sharing this, and found it a kind of 
honour to be allowed a glimpse into the poet's early process.
And I do hope that we will see the result, but Colin may decide not to 
continue with it.
best wishes to everyone, and fruitful 'processes',
Gill
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sally James" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: pre-sub/Sally J/Gill


Yes I know what you mean Matt. A poet and a former tutor who has open poetry
floor poetry nights around here always says never let the introduction be
longer than the poem you are reading. But to have explanations at the
beginning and the end also is a bit too much I agree. An lintroduction draws
the audience in but afterwards I think it should be left for the listener's
own in imagination to take over. best wishes sally j


>From: Matt Merritt <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: pre-sub/Sally J/Gill
>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:15:39 +0000
>
>I've got mixed feelings on this, and I think it depends on what the 
>introduction contains. I can enjoy, at readings, when a poet talks a little 
>bit around the poem, but I'm not very keen on them explaining too much.
>I went to a reading recently at which a pretty well known Irish poet, whose 
>written work I like a lot, did lengthy intros to each poem, in which he 
>pretty much 'explained' them. He then talked about each poem afterwards 
>too, all of which completely took the shine off the poems themselves.
>
>
>>From: Gary Blankenship <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: pre-sub/Sally J/Gill
>>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:55:34 -0800
>>
>>If I may step in.  A favorite author of mine is Harlen Elison, who was 
>>known
>>for his story introductions, often longer and more entertaining than the
>>story.  I've thought for some time that poets miss an opportunity by not
>>penning more introductions as to why the poem, how it came to be.
>>
>>Smiles.
>>
>>Gary
>>
>>
>>Gary's book, A River Transformed at http://www.lulu.com/content/178110
>>
>>Jan and last FireWeed ready to read.
>>at http://www.mindfirerenew.com.
>>
>>Gar's blog at http://garydawg.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail 
>http://ideas.live.com

_________________________________________________________________
Upload 500 photos a month & blog with your Messenger buddies on Windows Live
Spaces. Get yours now, FREE! http://specials.uk.msn.com/spaces/default.aspx



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release Date: 14/02/2007 
16:17