Jeff,
Sorry - I should have read through my last post before sending it: 2nd
line "other" should read "others" and later
"a poem, any poem, sets up associations that have to restricted" should read
"sets up associations that have to be restricted" (adjusted below).
A case where what you call the "grammatically syntactical" would definitely
have helped!
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamie Mckendrick" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
Jeff,
Your sweeping veto on narrative elements in poems leaves behind you a
pretty scorched and impoverished terrain, as others have noticed - but I'm
just
as worried by your defence of free-association:
“I think most people free-associate at some point when reading poetry. I
always thought this was the point of poetic language—to allow for this.
Poetry that precludes such an act, in my view, is not poetry.”
It’s hard to deny that “most people free-associate at some point when
reading poetry”, though I’d argue that at the point they do so they’ve
already
stopped reading it. No kind of poetry can quite “preclude” the activity: I
can
free-associate in the bath, on the bus, or watching a tv programme,
particularly if it doesn’t interest me much. I've no need of poetry for this
purpose, so I don’t see free-association as “the point of poetic language”.
It
goes without saying that the experiences, memories and knowledge that
people bring to a poem are crucial in understanding it, but I think a poem,
any
poem, sets up associations that have to be restricted (including those that
might
not have been intended, but that are still operative). Certain poems are
more
and others less restrictive in their associations, but this isn’t a
necessary
indicator of their quality.
In the Jacket article, presumably as a corrective to Armitage’s ‘Night
Shift’
you offer one of your own compositions:
I a egg
I a waffle
I broken
the better to live
followed by a commentary which deserves to be quoted in full:
"For example, if we look at the words ‘egg’, ‘waffle’, ‘broken’ and ‘better
to live’
it is possible to free-associate from each one. From ‘egg’, we can get
to “delicate”, or “clever” (as in “egg-head”) or “baby” (as
in “chicklet”). ‘Waffle’ has another meaning apart from a food; it also
means: “Pause or hold back in uncertainty or unwillingness”. ‘Broken’ can
mean, “broken physically” or “broken emotionally”, the word can also
mean: “interrupt”. ‘Better to live’ can mean “able to live”, “more fit to
live”
or “more worthy of life”. My interpretation of these lines is: “I am an
unborn
baby (egg). I sense my mother’s uncertainty about having me (waffle). I hope
she does not abort me (broken). I am worthy of life (better to live).
Consequently, from a set of ungrammatical phrases it is possible to confer a
depth of meaning. Such interpretations as given in the above two examples
would be difficult with lines that were grammatically syntactical."
Both verse and commentary leave me in even deeper doubt about the virtues
of free-association and made me turn back with relief to Armitage. I’d also
like
to think you were “having a laugh”, but I fear you weren’t.
Jamie
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:14:29 +0000, Sean Bonney
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Jeff, you're having a laugh, right? otherwise, Mayakovsky's "An
>Extraordinary
Adventure" isn't a poem, or Frank O'Hara's "The Day Lady Died", or about a
million others.
>what about long stories? or is "Paradise Lost" not a poem either?
>
>http://abandonedbuildings.blogspot.com/
>
>--- On Thu, 18/2/10, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>The only rule I have is that a poem should not be a short story, or
>vignette. Everything else is allowed.
>
>You systematically favour the kind of vagueness or indeterminacy you
>find in various song lyrics and a particular kind of poetry, perhaps
>because it allows you to happily free-associate.
>
>I think most people free-associate at some point when reading poetry. I
>always thought this was the point of poetic language—to allow for this.
>Poetry that precludes such an act, in my view, is not poetry.
>
|