Re: John on Peter on Prynne`s poetry giving the impression that it
knows a lot of stuff.
It`s a hunch, but I think Peter might well have been talking about
the tone in late Prynne, and not the lexical indicators which point
to a thorough grounding in topiary and economics. The tone, or the timbre,
along each modulation is pretty unruffled, a slick consistency to it which has
fuck all to do with what might be being said and which can therefore
be swopped among the fan base `til they embarrass themselves. I said
something similar back-channel to Nate Dorward today, but all the
stuff he has read is most obviously processed, being processed, in
the English Intelligencer period (he provides us with notes): you
know the story already...lamentable consequences of division in
intellectual labour to be cicatrized by recombination via METAPHOR in
poetic language, which is why it`s important. As I said to Nate, the
late work sows a lexis or three in order to connect (or fail to
connect) via evolved METONYMIC systems in the reader`s life-world:
the sets of figures are articulated in sentence- and stanza- units to direct the
reader to the relevant metonymic chain, which is theoretically
infinitely extendable. Which is why the earlier work strikes us as
very clever and makes us feel very clever reading it; and why the
late work strikes some of us as being very clever (tho` we don`t know
why) and strikes others as something whose existence requires urgent
justification.
A reverie.
all best
robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|