Dear David -
I'm not sure why a reader would make more reference to form in Raworth
than in Prynne, except possibly because Prynne's forms are less available
to current theory? Less notably stimulated by it? cris - isn't your
description of Raworth, which may be perfectly apt, yet transferable to
many other current poetries? I can't think of an apt description of
Prynne that would be so transferable. As for the binary opposition of
form and content: dialectic, however indisintegrable or blended its terms
become, requires at least at its outset two distinct and to some extent
opposed propositions; without opposing 'form' to anything radically
different, how is it valuably comprehensible?
Both poets seem to me especially interesting, but not especially
interesting in comparison to each other. But then, I freely admit, I know
Prynne's work much better.
k.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|