There are certainly shifting voices though the whole would be read by one
voice.
When I wrote it, I thought the last two lines were certainly voyeuristic,
whatever else they were, and possibly the narrative voice of the poem. It
occurred to me later that one could take the final line as a speech by the
she referred to in the penultimate line; but that has a tang of a mode of
40s hollywood film for me, one I do not particularly like in this context.
So I am back with it being two lines told by the narrator, somehow
channelling other voices or chorusing with them. That's how I'd read it. I
do not say these things as directive. I quite like it all being a little
adrift, a gathering of vessels not roped together but not yet separating
On 30 October 2013 19:07, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This one seems interestingly fragmented, Lawrence, or just shifting voices?
>
> That last line, & who says it...
>
> But I enjoyed following through...
>
> Doug
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > All touch a placing; thinking phenomena;
> >
> > a river whispering, to thrash out security.
> >
> >
> >
> > A large quiet, an auditory lucidity,
> >
> > surrounded by sorrow: hum and tongue.
> >
> >
> >
> > You feel unwilling, trailed by publicity,
> >
> > following advertisements, a cortege.
> >
> >
> >
> > You think perhaps that love might be
> >
> > when Eurydice left behind
> >
> > one of two minds
> >
> >
> >
> > false doors each way
> >
> >
> >
> > Touch to take up her quietness.
> >
> > Amuse me.
> >
>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
> http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/
>
> Latest books:
> Continuations & Continuations 2 (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=962
> Recording Dates
> (Rubicon Press)
>
> Art is always the replacing of indifference by attention.
>
> Guy Davenport
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|