With some fairly recent discussions in mind:
Is it not true that if one is committed to changing the world one uses the
simplest language? That 'difficult' poetry has given up on this? (I don't
condemn this inward-turning, if it is acknowledged as such.) If one tries to
-understand- the world, one will be drawn into ever more detail and
complexity; but doesn't all -action- happen because the wish to act
overrides the niceties of the case (ie. the full and fair understanding of
the case)? I am -never- sure that I am right, and I never can be: every
decision is a plunge over Niagara in a barrel.
In a democracy some understanding is vital, but can't it be fetishized:
understanding at any cost?
I have great admiration for some difficult poets, Prynne for example. Yet
when I read his poems I feel put off by the distance between their
scrupulosity and the necessary one-tracked-ness of the lived life: I cannot
live scrupulously, because action requires me to come down on one of the
millions of sides of any given problem. Intellectually I don't want to sign
up - to New Labour, to an artistic manifesto etc. - but with my life I must
sign up, all the time.
A poetry that has as its ultimate aim understanding, can acknowledge this.
But is this enough? Aren't there grounds for calling a poetry that comes
down on sides -more- interested in life, and truer to life, than one that
will - whatever its reasons for doing so - only share in the alluring free
world of thought?
Best to all,
James
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|