I think you misunderstand Creeley. He's precisely denying a division
between form and content. I'd suggest you also look at his poem The
Finger, in his book Pieces. Or Numbers, in the same book.
Mark
At 11:43 AM 4/8/2009, you wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:26 AM
>Subject: Re: Dead ends
>
>
>>Something like Creeley's "form is never more than an extension of content"?
>
>
>Yes, exactly. I have great respect for Creilly. His basic
>subject-matter is his loves and his own moment-by-moment sensual
>experiences, and he found a style that truthfully reflected them,
>and thereby also showed something of the conditions in which his
>love and sensuality occurred. (In the abstract, his range of
>subject-matter is comparable to, say, Robert Graves's.)
>
>I know that all my talk of "reflection" and "adequation," my
>insistence on a style/content distinction, makes any good
>poststructuralist's teeth hurt. But it will be interesting to see
>how popular Derrida et al. will remain under conditions of economic hardship.
|