Peter, it would be difficult not to take your point that metaphors aren't
so empirical as to be connective, sure. But beyond a blanket definition,
wouldn't it be -responsible- to gauge individually the connotative power
of particular metaphors, and to try to establish in individual cases how
those connotations might be most productively directed? With 'moneyed',
this seems critical; partly because, unlike 'honeyed' it doesn't carry any
insoluble significant connection to poetical language, but more
importantly because money is after all what makes the poetry industry
happen. Honey is not. To use it casually, in disapproving aspects of
poetic style pure and simple, and without any attempt to locate that
judgement within a more circumspect consideration of the relation between
money and words, seems indulgent to me. Of course, this is more or less
the case for all metaphors. If I said that I found a white poet's poetry
'black', that it was a product of the 'black tongue', I suspect (quite
strongly) that I'd be asked to explain my use of the word with reference
to present social realities. I think it is just a basic complexity of
metaphoric reference. According to your view, I could unobjectionably
take up 'moneyed' for myself, and use it to describe poetry written by
destitute Africans. I could nominate stylistic features, say how I find
them unappealing, and call them 'moneyed' or, say, 'NATO-like', or how
about, 'Clinton's-golf-club-membership-like'. These are absurd examples,
and do of course bully your point, but I object firstly to your principle
in describing metaphoric language, which I take to be useful because it
arises from some modified but verifiable social necessity, and not from
the whim of a deprecator. But thanks for reminding Trevor that you were
in fact discussing Cambridge poetry.
Trevor -- do you see any connection between 'money' and some of the poetry
written in Cambridge? If so, how would you describe this? Perhaps I
should in fairness say beforehand, mind, that it's not all that obvious
that you have answered this question, when what purports to be an answer
is simply a laconic scoff at 'polysyllables' etc. Perhaps the key words
could be, 'money', 'poetry', and 'connection'. Feel free to quote this
distortingly in your next rejoinder.
I thank Robin for his post, which anticipated precisely what I would have
wished to say, though Robin puts it perfectly.
Harold -- what are the differences, as I see them? It's a huge Q of
course, but what I meant in the distinction cursorily laid out in my
previous post, was that a lot of the poetry written around here makes a
fairly direct demand that readers acknowledge the extent of erudition (and
not simply thoughtfulness) informing its purposes and management of style.
As far as I can see, this is a neutral remark. I don't see that demand so
forcefully put, in the L poetry I've read. And for various reasons of
course. Partly I believe that the two 'types' of work conceive of
different arguments for theorizing how a text might be coercive, and that
the value of coercion per se is contested in differently suspicious
critical ways. Broadly put, and missing ALL the connecting footnotes, I
suppose I'd say that the C/L contrast is a contrast of public/private
exegetical reaction; the liberty in pleasurable and singular readings and
misreadings of text that L would seem to encourage, doesn't seem to be
construed a real liberty by C. I hope my use of initials is sufficiently
reductive.
What do you think, from your own reading?
Well Trevor that last post was a little bit funnier than the other, I'll
give you that. You're not bad at the snide bon mot.
Best, k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|