Dear Chris,Peter, Alison, and others,
First the following is commendable
Last week at this time I'd just come off a stage, here in Lowestoft,
playing at a benefit we organised for the Kosovo Refugee Lorries Appeal.
Over 1000 people turned up, of all ages, and stayed for over 9 hours of
music, movement-theatre and poetry. Over eleven hundred pounds was raised,
almost enough to send one lorry of clothing piled up in a warehouse under a
mile away. When I write I what do I mean? When I read I whom am I reading?
I know Lowestoft and for that sum to be raised there --well it is an
achievement.
Now regarding --ah my surname Pain. Yes, it is my surname --over here people
are called by their surnames, and when I got this email installed I just did
as the Romans did --or here the Japanese. For your edification Pain is an
old French --and probably Roman name, meaning "pagan" or "rustic" take your
pick. Thomas Pain(e) from Thetford had the same name until they added an "e"
. My first name is Stephen.
Poetry.
I read with interest the replies to my earlier posting and though it is nice
to receive poetry by Tom Raworth and to know that people are considerate, it
does nothing to resolve or answer my questions. The one word column by
Andrews has a novelty effect -- as does most of the Lang-Po and Cam-Po --
and that novelty has surely worn off --unless they choose another
medium --maybe the shows in Venice can give clues. George Herbert's "Easter"
and other poems that are in the pattern category --are not overly concerned
with the pattern itself --in Herbert's case it is the poetic and spiritual
message that is of import. Sometimes the changes in syntax and layout are
for shock tactics --but they simply do not shock anymore, it was shocking in
the early part of this century, but no longer. That novelty has gone. Was it
the late Walter Nash who wrote books on layout and design? Perhaps those
interested should read his books?
Then it must be something to do with the theory? We have been told that
poetry is ahead of science --I won't comment on that -- but I can tell you
for sure that it is way behind the current theories --many of which now have
returned to the "self". The language theory that underpins the Lang-po and
Cam-Po is woefully out of date --and it reminds one of the Open University
programmes which are in black and white --with a presenter who has long hair
and flares. Perhaps the Po sisters are retro sisters? To continue to write
in the vein of an outmoded style with old-fashioned ideas --is akin to the
Neo-Georgians is it not? Do you wish me to be clearer than that? Is that
shocking?
Here then are my points --put atomistically as possible( as Wittgenstein
seems to be still de rigueur):
i. the games with syntax are no longer amusing or shocking --as with rhyme
they should earn their keep
ii.theory used to prop up poetry that is weak --should at least be up to
date -- but perhaps one should consider writing without theory? Is that too
difficult? Is it something to do with the employment situation -- poets need
to keep a foot in the door of literary or cultural criticism?
iii. Write poetry.
iv. listen to the sound track of the film "black gangster" it might give you
some tips on "language" busting. I enjoyed it immensely -although disagree
with the message...
v. Lighten up.
stephen
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|