Umm. A posting in language that is, uh, "tractable", as we say hereabouts.
1. 'referring to something as if the reader already knows about it'
In a random look at my poetry, EA Markham posited the "can you look it up"
test, in a post-reading, retro-fitting the meaning kind of way. But this
implies that the language used is "authentic" and the poet-voice is
reliable. And a poem should be dealable in it's own setting/context (is
this true?) Although John does suggest a nice distributed network which
appeals to me in which assoiciativity is loosely coupled/free-floating.
2. "it occurs to me than actually Prynne's specialized languages are mainly
three: money/high finance, plant biology/human physiology and geology."
I want to use speicialised languages in a natural setting (natural to the
poem, that is). The only solution I can think of, without resorting to
"sound-poetry" is to make it mungeable from the context...or hope that the
reader connects (which, to me, isn't a million miles from Peter's
position).
Would Prynne have got so much attention if he'd used, say, the language of
the DIY-er or B&Q?
What if you invent a pseudo-speicialized language (for a spoof, say, or for
a serious purpose)?
You could, of course, litter your text with foot-notes...or get someone to
write a serious critical text on your work.
An example of using "speicialised language" in a tractable context is UA
Fanthorpes poem where she constructs a poem from the language of
road-signs. Damned if I can remember the name, though.
Just what is a "speicialised language"?
Roger
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|