one brief VERY HURRIED and particular remark re: Drew's essay on Wilkinson
--
I seem to recall the "/" at its outset being referred to (maybe forgetting
exactly) by DM as "ominous" which is fine, but were the desire to abandon
practical criticism in favour of remoter sallies into the hope of a
'general' and preparatory criticism (of why it is tough to read etc)
checked at this detail - and I'm hazarding this off the cuff - might it
not then allow a bit more pertinence in calling attention to the literal
function of the "/" as a separation of choices or possible outcomes, the
first (to the left of the /) being nothing at all (or at least nothing
presented on paper), the second (to its right) being _Sarn Helen_? That
is, there is a typographical equation - or relation in a dual presentation
- between what one does before one opens the book and what one does when
suddenly the EYE and EAR become the overt immediate focus of bodily
effort; the / turns into a precarious dam, really taking the strain before
an onslaught of high-powered attention which through a KIND of surfeit (I
think however that ideally there'd be none of -this- difficulty in reading
the piece and that at some point there'll be considerably less, we
shouldn't be so keenly exasperated in impressing upon readers that they're
going to miss a load of allusion -necessarily-) begins to suggest an equal
or at least juxtaposed surfeit in the prior condition also; this does NOT
(and this is my point) suggest that "life is like this" (Wilkinson made a
similar remark re: Mengham, which I suspect of a sort of inaccuracy), but
says in fact that "you might now cognize that equality or juxtaposition
-through- having been provoked by this gesture, and the quality of the
resulting cognition will inevitably be characterized by that gesture's
intervention". A tiresome way of chatting about a backslash, and too
drawn out perhaps; I think Drew's essay is well written smart and useful,
it made me rush back to the text, and of course he had only so much space,
but is anyone else beginning to doubt that the concentration of
interpretive efforts on 'why interpretation is hindered', is basically a
diversion from what might otherwise more forcefully be brought to
light - the poem's particular statements and attendance to the
potential locality of its details and of its movement between
details? (I'd not say this were this latter kind of criticism abundant, or
the former type lacking). Anyhow, "some thoughts".
I do like Drew's essay.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|