And, if you're going at it the way I think, Tim, then it's because the
form you engage, esplore, always leads to some kind of content (words
again). bpNichol always said he worked at innovating form because
'content' (we just dont seem to have other words) is always there
(waiting?), but every new approach makes it new(ly).
Doug
On 9-Apr-09, at 3:58 AM, Tim Allen wrote:
> At a certain point in my writing Creeley's 'form is never more than
> an extension of content" became very important and began to make
> sense in a practical way. It is helpful - very helpful. And yes,
> there is certainly a division between those of us for whom it is
> helpful and those who find it unhelpful.
>
> I remember years ago - before I ever looked at Creeley closely - I
> had some notion in my head that content always possessed form, even
> though such form might be fluid, but that form did not possess
> content, not in the conceptual sense at least - a kind of common
> sense view I suppose. I changed my mind though, not through any
> theory, not even Creeley's, but through writing, especially writing
> long poems. I found that form possessed content. It is the nature of
> this 'content' that fascinated me and keeps me writing.
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
|