There is nearly always a definition drift between America and here -
it has caused trouble before - I'll leave John to sort this one out.
Yes, I was thinking about Ginsberg too but I shouldn't have brought up
the 'intention' and 'revision' thing, though I know why I did.
I am tempted to push this and say that if you want to know what 'a
planned open form poem would look like' then open up some Brit mags,
but I won't, it would be too skeptical and silly.
I'm off now Mark - I've got an open form poem planned, to finish
before tea.
Cheers
Tim A.
On 15 Apr 2010, at 16:28, Mark Weiss wrote:
> It may be there's some definition drift going on in Britain, I can't
> say, but not in the US as far as I know. John's usage is the first
> such I've seen.
>
> This has nothing to do with whether or not one revised. Almost
> everyone--including Ginsberg, by the way--revises in some manner.
> Nor does it have to do with singularity of intention. I'm not alone
> in finding myself creating, often, forests rather than individual
> trees.
>
> But I'm curious what a planned open form poem would look like.
> Surely there's a set of expectations about what open form means to
> John that would be evident in the product?
>
> Best,
>
> Mark
>
> At 11:16 AM 4/15/2010, you wrote:
>> Maybe Mark, and of course Creeley is crucial with regard to this -
>> but
>> here in the UK I have witnessed the term 'open form' being used in
>> the
>> way John used it. Questions of revision and refining come into this,
>> don't they? And there is rarely a single intention going on in an
>> initial poem draft - what happens with the final poem, with the way
>> many Brit mainstream poems come across, is that there is an
>> imposition
>> of an artificial single intention - a making it look as though it is
>> all of one and was from the very beginning. It's a trick, a tired
>> trick.....
|