Thanks John for clarification. Really appreciated.
Rupert
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Latta" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: "I HATE SPEECH" (or maybe not)
> Rupert,
>
> I'm not putting a value judgment to "detritus"--or, if so, a positive one;
> like compost, it's what enriches the written language, speech does. I'm
> merely pointing out that Grenier's I HATE SPEECH essay doesn't apply to
> much of his practice.
>
> John
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, RUPERT MALLIN wrote:
>
>> "Over heard detritus." Surely this IS poetry! If poetry merely flows from
>> reading poetry - classical, historic or contemporary - where's the
>> audience, save a circle of poets, ending up in a pretty incestuous art
>> form.
>>
>> As one who has both stood on stages to act and to speechify as a left
>> wing politician, poetry in England kind of kills me: the camps of either
>> high poetry or performance poetry (back to rhyming couplets) aren't good
>> enough. Or bad enough. Few in England would get the drift of Ron's
>> reference to "halfway between Brecht & Buddy Hackett."
>>
>> Brecht was the best epic dramatist since Shakespeare. Yes, Brecht took on
>> literary/dramatic history but how did he break through class barriers to
>> create Epic Drama? Over heard detritus!
>>
>> Come off the fence. Detritus is "shit." So we're talking "over heard
>> shit." My neighbour has beaten the shit out of young men and a woman and
>> is 24 years old, hot foot from a spell in prison. We talk. I can hear
>> every word he utters in his flat. Is this the "shit" poetry leaves behind
>> or do we take this on board in someway?
>>
>> If we want to take poetry forward to an audience beyond a university
>> setting alone we really have to rejoin with Ron here. Or else we just
>> accept poetry is fallen leaves not the falling.
>>
>> Rupert xx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Latta" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: "I HATE SPEECH" (or maybe not)
>>
>>
>>> "Tactical use" here seems kin to "plausible deniability"--meaning "I'm
>>> sloganeering for effect more than anything else." A look at Grenier's
>>> "Sentences" shows a huge number of speech-based pieces, overheard
>>> detritus:
>>>
>>> I've got to go over and get it
>>>
>>> I don't mind cars at night
>>>
>>> who
>>> ate
>>> the
>>> sherbet
>>> Laura
>>>
>>> Grenier's a nonstop talker, too.
>>>
>>> John Latta
>>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Ron Silliman wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you read Grenier's essay, it's quite evident that this is a tactical
>>>> use
>>>> of that term, as in "the metaphor of speech has been totally overdone
>>>> to the
>>>> point that it's meaningless." It's also clear that Bob is really more
>>>> interested in the way words pop up in one's imagination & he tends to
>>>> recreate this in his readings in various inventive manners. His
>>>> performances
>>>> are halfway between Brecht & Buddy Hackett.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
|