Ah, Bob, the golden oldies, "unity" and restricting interpretation to the poem alone. I remember learning about those "restraints" ages ago, barely post-Camelot, within a course entitled "Practical Criticism". Can't say they ever surfaced when Mary Ellen Solt in person was introducing me to concrete poetry. I wonder why?
Let me report that despite the language barrier, both the screenwriter and director of ENCHAINEES contacted me after reading my cine-poem, and that now my text appears publicly within a context they established. I've learned that the film will be shown tomorrow on TV5 from Switzerland, and that it has been screened in 15 Chinese cities, Vietnam, Dar es Salaam, Toronto, Sao Paolo, Oslo, & . . .
Barry
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:32:42 -0500, Bob Grumman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Sorry to be a pest (a very minor one, I hope), Barry, but while I'm sure
>you're right for those knowledgeable about Raymond Vouillamoz and
>DECHAINEES, someone ignorant of both like me, would not be able to find
>that unity--from the poem alone. But, yes, I consider a proper reader
>of the poem responsible for learning about V. and DECHAINEES. So it's
>my fault that I didn't see the unity you show to be there. Meanwhile,
>it's neat that the poem can work both and maybe other ways. Even if I'm
>the only one it works for my first way!
>
>--Bob
>On 3/10/2011 2:35 PM, Barry Alpert wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> I could say that the closing couplet does "wrap up" the character of the family as a whole, since it was uttered as a unifying gesture by a family member whose very existence had been denied for 40 years by her sister and her husband, and whose precise biological relation to their daughter and her two daughters remained unknown until the revelation. So, yes, a miniature family drama.
>>
>> Barry
|