Mark,
I was inveigled into speaking about technique by an earlier post - it's not a
term I care to use myself. But if it has to be used, I've no objection to your
idea that "Technique is what we learn and are occasionally blessed with as a
labor-free gift." The rhythms and sound effects in poems that interest me
have little to do with a performative competence in a particular metre,
however it might have come across.
Best,
Jamie
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:11:23 -0500, Mark Weiss
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Jamie: My last word on this. It's not about technique per se, pro or
>con. But it has to be internalized to such an extent
>that it doesn't seem contrived for its own sake, that it seems a
>natural extension of one's everyday language. I hesitate to impugn
>basket-weavers, but poetry isn't basket-weaving. One has, I think, to
>be convinced that the poet needed to write the poem, not that he
>wanted to. The sense of contrivance wars against that.
>
>Finally what it comes down to. Are you really convinced that Armitage
>had to write this? If so, fine. And for those who aren't convinced,
>myself among them, also fine.
>
>Best,
>
>Mark
>
>At 02:01 PM 2/17/2010, you wrote:
>>Jeff,
>> I fear you haven't really considered my point about technique -
>> that sound and rhythm are not decorative extras for a poem but
>> integral to it. Since you're keen to make distinctions between
>> poetry and prose, I'd have thought these things might have
>> interested you more. As for the poem's imagery, I've already said
>> why I think it works.
>> Thanks for the Ward song - but I found it almost unbearably
>> schmaltzy. It is not at all on a similar theme and it's
>> linguistically inept, though despite his reverential mention of
>> Wordswoth and Browning "who all seem to be saying the same thing" I
>> don't suppose he'd think it was a poem. Speaking of suppositions,
>> why do you assume "simple, non-avant-garde language" would please
>> me? I don't think I've ever stated such a preference.
>>Jamie
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:11 PM
>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>
>>
>>Jamie, technique in itself does not make a poem. It is the combination
>>of that with imagery, allusion, metonymy, a certain mystery, etc. The
>>Armitage poem has little of the latter aspects. That's why I am
>>criticising it. I find the poem's sentiments and execution of them one-
>>dimensional.
>>
>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:49:50 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff,
>>> I'm not sure why what I've written should seem " mostly technical
>>points"
>>>or exactly what it would mean if they were.
>>> Surely technique, in which sound-effects play a large part, should be
>>>relevant in describing why it's a poem rather than "perhaps, good prose
>>>fiction" as you call it....
|