Peter I have to say
"I mean a personal lyrical/ meditational medium which accepts the innate
modesty of
the fact of the individual, more subject to than modulating terrestrial
forces, essentially a testimony rather than a critique."
really how much I disagree with this; it is rather a de facto hindrance to
political wariness that so many individuals are, in any case, -made- into
testimonies, promoted as some 'innately modest', discrete unit of
representation drifting about in faithful eschewal of anything so
'subjective' or remote as a critique. Terrestrial forces is a carefully
selected term, but does it really appear here with the force of relevance
that another term might, eg economic forces? Can we not be that specific?
Is our economic self-determination merely a fibre of a broader
indeterminacy, something more earthly but less -in the world-? I cannot
see how it can be maintained that we do not modulate this kind of
terrestrial force - money - unless we accept quite desperately that we're
all just drops in the ocean, and all the same size at that (in which case,
the fact of being thought so is germinally a critique, isn't it? ought'nt
it to be?). We are not all the same size; we are in different sizes. The
modesty you propose is sufficient to command the discipline of a lyrical
orientation, but surely only at the cost of severing that vantage from the
real and generative circumstances of its proper functioning? You write of
a successful enterprise - which enterprise is this? A poetry favoured in
because without the world (in favour of 'the earth')?
This is not how I read your poetry; I cannot help but register in your
anti-anti- remarks a margin of chagrin that disserves and discolours. To
my mind, at least. But thankyou for making them,
Keston
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|