Ric promised that:
>JHP's linear forms are
> tight, deliberate, and every bit as challenging as the words:
I take this to mean, in its broader context, you suspect that there
are reasons why the poems look like that (that these are good reasons
(after all, he`s a clever bloke)), in the same way that you suspect
Prynne wouldn`t use THOSE words in THAT order without some perfectly
valid justification, so good luck to him even if we`re not
going to go to the trouble of trying to work up some sort of
reading ourselves... [The words, the forms, can they be tight,
deliberate, challenging, before they`ve been read? Whatever tight,
deliberate and challenging are supposed to mean//]
> Could we say that the rigour of the
> language, combined with the rigour of the (implied but absent) structure
> creates and exploits tensions in both?
Am I right in thinking that "rigour" in this case is a euphemism for
the migraine-inducing combination of syntactical contortions usually
associated with Renaissance playwrights and agents of espionage, and
Hegelian abstraction that constitutes Prynne`s habitual Spur? A
euphemism for the lack of nice, clear bits? Lack of which has
Pete/Keston (I forget) talking `bout alleviation from suffering
(poetry)?
> The tell-me-what-it-means squad will end up by showing that it's
> good writing, good prose, but the tell-me-how-it-sounds crowd are the ones
> who'll show us it's workings as poetry. I'd value a reply which was rooted
> in the physicalities of this work, and doesn't need three critical
> theorists to prop it up.
So let me get this straight...you`re asking the rest of the list to
explain late Prynne to you, you are already barely stifling a yawn at
the attempts you expect, and you are trying to dictate the terms in
which those attempts are made?
Fine, no problem.
all best
robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|