Hey Peter
> "by deploying what Silliman calls "the new sentence" (disjunctive, chiasmatic) or by decontextualizing "the old sentence" or by breaking the word into vocables as per Cobbing or losing the words down the guttering between the pages ( as in the Andrea Brady poem I was reading last night) or a hundred other etceteras."
You commented: Do you know I can't think of a single good reason for doing any of those things, including the extra hundred.
I was perplexed. I'm thinking I suppose of your Excavations and its frequent habit of e.g. beginning poems half-way through sentences. That whole text and its sentence structure seems to me massively torqued and for all sorts of good reasons. Do you feel that it nevertheless doesn't break the sentence in the same kind of way as the other disparate practices I mentioned?
*
I hope I can also claim credit for the "bourgeois quality of interestingness". David Bircumshaw and I kicked it around it briefly on this forum. The original context, not exactly a revolutionary cell, was my Edmund Spenser essay, - specifically it referred to Henry James' "The Art of Fiction", early 20th c. criticism, and early modernism.
http://intercapillaryspace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/edmund-spenser-shepheardes-calender.html
|