On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Douglas Clark wrote:
> I see the plus in Prynne being a rare interest in the surface texture
> of language but I feel a negative impact in his inability to convey
> feeling to me.
and Roger Day wrote:
> If Poetry/poetry/Art/art doesn't have emotional weight, then, IMO, it
> becomes a sterile/stale excercise. Whether or not this is true of
> Prynne, I will have to investigate...
Umm. The risk of restrictive definition-making rises again. Well, one
man's passion is another's poison I guess. Quite often in the world you
find that people just won't give you the emotional response you want,
expect and doubtless deserve, where perhaps, uh, you should be looking to
see what response is actually on offer instead. Self-evidently the
emotional weight 'n' feeling factor in JHP is quite other than, say, Ted
Hughes, or the late Tammy Wynette (not that I'm proposing a connection
there, by the way) - nevertheless, I'd rekon you could read Prynne as a
pretty passionate poet, and indeed you should, if it's that important to
you. Like so many elements of the transmission process, you need a
receiver as well as a transmitter in order for the spark to jump across
the gap. Is a negative impact something like a convex dent?
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|