On my understanding (or misunderstanding) of the function of definitions
these seem, at best, incomplete. Still perhaps the definition of definition
has been revised - perhaps it is now some sort of enabling act of attention
- in which case I suppose these comments are irrelevant. Specific remarks
below:
>
>Verse is language in lines. (p 11)
>
But so is prose. The telephone book is certainly language in lines.
>
>A poem is the language of an act of attention. (p 12)
>
Why is there this insistance that it must be possible to provide reductive
definitions of 'a poem' and 'verse' and 'poetry' - I'm not at all sure that
such reductive definitions are possible - at least not as simply (i.e.
within one modest sized volume) expressible definitions (I'm reminded of the
notion of a 'family resemblance')
Not sure what 'an act of attention' could be - it sounds the type of
catch-all that could be applied to any conscious activity.
>
>Rhythm, in poetry, is the temporal distribution of the elements of
>language. (p 14)
How could elements of language NOT be temporally distributed? Well the
claim that all language has rhythm isn't too ghastly, but the later
definitions which use the word 'numerical' as a way of glossing a rather
subtle distinction are less satisfactory. It seems the word numerical is
being used as a poor substitute for ideas of regularity and pattern - which
whilst it is true that regularity and pattern can be analysed numerically,
it is also true that many other temporal distributions that lack both
regularity and pattern can also be analysed 'numerically'.
Hope this is useful and not just a load of old twaddle
Cheers
Chris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|