On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Ernest Slyman wrote:
> You write ---
>
> Let's look at that phrase "the modern meditative
> non-communal poem" and ponder on the way it actively seeks to close down
> possibilities, to cut itself off from its kin, to restrict itself at the
> outset. Sad.
>
> The closing down of possibilities here, as you refer it, speaks too harshly
> against the verse as defined by and existing in a state of "meditative
> non-communal." As though that form was an inferior form of writing, not one
> desired.
- Well, my intention was not to call it inferior (having already sought to
say that *you can actually have both*) - but to call attention to Larkin's
- as always - very specific use of language, his process of rejection,
restriction:
- "modern" (When? How long is this valid for?) to disassociate itself from
work, writers and readers outside that narrow timeframe;
- "meditative" to imply that spoken poetry is other than meditative, a
judgement which is not confirmed by my own experience - goodness me, had
he never heard of spoken or sung meditation? Again, a dissociative act.
- "non-communal" - the hardest part of all for me: to disassociate itself
from the communal world which we share (this is how we talk, or e-mail,
right? how we understand, and avoid bombing each other): what happens when
we reject - by design, as Larkin does - that community - humanity, in fact
- of which we are part?
I may not argue here any inferiority in this limitation, but I do ask for
a recognition that it *is* a restriction, a deliberate choice to exclude
at each stage. Verily, it has its rewards.
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|