I am intrigued by your response Trevor. I was not rebarbative in my response
by the way, I was repellent. I hate to think that I would stoop to use such
fancyspeak as rebarbative. As to the claims made on behalf of Prynne. Well
it intrigues me. He has the power of a Rupert Murdoch. He can exercise
control over the meaning of a text, by preventing readers from thinking for
themselves or imposing their own meaning on the text.
through a
>dense interlocking of his verbal surfaces via controlled and deliberate
>ambiguities, resists any attempt by the reader simply to free-associate
Polishing surfaces? Is it correct that Pynne's meaning is privileged over
other meanings? If that is the case, then Prynne is a modernist, and in that
respect he is no different from the others quoted. Is it merely that Prynne
aims at a form of hermeticism? Which actually runs counter to his politics?
This is the exclusivity I am talking about. The rarified bunkum.
And the ineffectuality of English poetry that seals meaning and life,
within stones, glass or the parlour room. It has all the movement of a fly
in amber. it is essentially monological in nature, eshewing the dialogue,
effective communication, and ultimately engagement with life and issues, We
can find similar experiments and programmes in first part of the Twentieth
century. Look at Andrei Beli, Mayakovski , and Osip Mandelstam. . .but the
difference, and I think it is very important, even Osip Mandelstam who wrote
poetry that is very erudite and tightly controlled, accommodated the reader,
entered into a contractual relationship -- and even during his Acmeist
period Mandelstam and others believed in a form of "democratic" humanism.
Read his "Stone" and you will understand my point.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|