I write this with some reluctance in that I don't know what I'm talking
about. However, in the spirit of dialogue,
Peter Riley wrote:
> Surely the self is in a very important sense all you have, as Wyndham
Lewis
> said, it is your bird in the hand, it is finally your only medium of
> authentification of percepts. I have a feeling I have said this before
in
> this group, several times.
Is there a dividing line here, where one side seeks this authentification
and the other doesn't? (BTW repeating a statement makes it neither more nor
less necessary or true.) Or is it that one side is stiffening up in
reaction to the other's floppiness. It does seem that both sides are
suffering from hardening of the attitudes.
Peter also wrote
> However, I'm really looking forward to the next stage of this discussion
> because "pain's" (why in the world does someone choose to call
him/herself
> "pain"?) questions are very carefully and intelligently put, and are
> questions which have been asked again and again, and which deserve an
> answer, and have never yet got one. They can't be just brushed aside.
> Come on now you growlers: justify these wierd practices point by point as
> demanded and do it smartly.
Again, repeating a question doesn't increase any obligation to answer it.
No one made Stephen ask his questions. Nor is anyone required to justify
their taste. I don't understand the aggression, however playful, occasioned
by inability to enjoy a particular form of writing. You don't have to like
it.
A couple of small points, which may be irrelevant, and possibly insulting.
Not meant so.
In his notes to his selection as featured poet in the PoetryEtc list cris
cheek mentions reading aloud. This is crucial. when I got Prynne's Red D
Gypsum from Keston Sutherland I tried reading it aloud at various speeds.
At the moment I like a fairly fast pace, letting things zip past my
internal processor. The point I'm clumsily making is that this, and other,
poems can be related to as an experience, it doesn't have to be a
cryptogram. The close reading approach is also one I like. But I prefer to
start with my own associations and let them build up then try to find
relationships between these associations and see what emerges. I'm not
talking about some cold blooded Prof Moriartyish deciphering scheme. It's
as much about sensing and intuition as logic. One needs to live with the
text a while to make this work. I am happy to read a text three or four
times through without putting myself under any pressure of understanding
until I have then begun to tune into it. Peter mentioned in another post
knowing what a poem was about after only reading a couple of lines. This
doesn't work for me at all. In my case, that would be a recipe for
disappointment, in that I think I would be approaching the experience with
an image of the experience already formed.
Stephen Pain's post mentioned a kind of poetry that is entirely propped up
by theory, much of which latter is old hat. This is very persuasive, but I
wonder is it a little limited. In Bernstein's theory, which I am only
beginning to read, having first read a great deal of his poetry, there
seems to me a performance aspect. Taking it as straight, undiluted dogma
with a capital d reduces the possibilites considerably. Is this the kind of
poetry you're talking about Stephen? If so, well I enjoy it, very much so,
quite independently of the theory, which I see as an interesting parallel
text, but not as some form of underwriting.
Whatever. Apologies if I've offended anyone by stating the painfully
obvious.
best wishes
Randolph Healy
Visit the Sound Eye website at:
http://indigo.ie/~tjac/sound_eye_hme.htm
or find more Irish writing at:
http://www.nd.edu/~ndr/issues/ndr7/contents.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|