No, I dont think so, Fred; it's a bit like what Mark says about the
Creeley quote; what Delany is arguing against is the promotion of
content over style, the denial that style is important, that any old
words will do, for example, once you have the idea, etc.
It's that phrase 'put in opposition to' that counts.
Of course, what my mentors taught me was that it's in the act of
writing, using all the formal knowledge you have, that you discover
what it is you have (been given, says Creeley) to say.
Anyway, that's how I take it.....
Doug
On 8-Apr-09, at 9:53 AM, Frederick Pollack wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Barbour" <[log in to unmask]
> >
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Dead ends
>
>
>> Well, fine, & if it works for you, Fred. I tend to live by Samuel R
>> Delany's comment many years ago:
>>
>> 'Put in opposition to 'style,' there is no such thing as 'content'.'
>>
>> Which does not in any way deny the importance of that latter....
>>
>
> But your and Delany's credo DOES "deny the importance" of content,
> Doug. If content is trivial vis-a-vis style, if it is an
> *epiphenomenon of style, then content IS unimportant for poetry and
> one can avoid thinking about it. Or relegate it to one's other
> reading in one's other roles - citizen, progressive, etc. - and
> assume that it will filter in to one's work as a poet. Which is
> what both "theory-driven" and "confession-driven" poets do. (Trying
> to avoid "language" and "mainstream.")
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
Latest books:
Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
Wednesdays'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
The covers of this book are too far apart.
Ambrose Bierce
|