H'm
I was tempted to wave this question under the inquisitive noses of one
or two scientist friends of mine but demured at the thought of their
cackling. IMHO it is as meaningful to talk of a poetry gene as it is to
speak of a train-spotting gene or a cameraman/woman's gene. It does,
however, seem increasingly likely that language is a disposition
'hard-wired' into the human brain, or, if you like, the imprint of the
Logos on every living soul, and, as poetry is inherent au natural within
language, then the potential for poetry is within all. The whether or
not any individual becomes enamoured of/entrapped by the Muse is surely
a result of the shower of chance aka the irresistible rhythms and tides
of fate that each of us encounter. One can imagine a family tradition of
writing poetry sustained over x generations, comparable to those many
and musical Bachs, but this would be the product of a cultural
inheritance, albeit on the micro-economic scale, rather than the blind
watchmaker's doing.
BTW I would have liked to have seen a sample quote or two from WALL in
Keston's sybilline review - I was intrigued by it but also did become a
little worried when I read of a 'prosodic level' that'commutes' into
'thematic clearings' - I think I grasp the notional description but
would like to see a little of what actually is happening - a
considerable amount of discourse re 'linguistically innovative' poetry
seems to consist of impressive language about nothing much to write home
about at all.
David
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|