On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >- hmm... I've heard this argument in various guises and remain to be
> >convinced. As theory it's so aereated as to be flimsy, and vulnerable to a
> >straight johnsonian "I refute it THUS" approach. Like Ken, I hope we can
> >keep serving a slice of poetry with our theory, pie with our gravy,
> >without which it's just a load of sauce.
>
> Dear Ric
>
> Whose "theory"? Are you talking about the I=T polemic I criticised,
> or my criticism?
- the theory which I feel to be flimsy is the one which proposess the
pursuit of poetic theory and/or poetics without reference to poetry.
> Your closing metaphor writes I=T poetry as nourishing and filling,
> with theory as the sauce which makes it more palatable. What I`m
> suggesting is that I=T writers have it the other way round.
Well, I was actually hoping for another level of meaning when I referred
to "sauce" - that's figurative language for you - never saving your bacon
- always landing you in the soup -
etc
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|