>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.
Nonetheless, if you look back at the subject of Harold Teichman's post
which ititiated this comparison of specific lines by Prynne with others
by Coolidge and McCaffrey, you may see why it struck me as an appropriate
adjective. Whether or not you are indeed repellent must remain a question
for yourself.
>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.
Are we thinking about the same Prynne, the same Murdoch? If so, we must
have very different senses of proportion, at least. Since I myself found
the attitude ascribed to Prynne sympathetic, may I expect to come into
control of a large part of the world's media in the near future? Or do
you perhaps expect me to impose my own reading on the text of your mail,
and amuse myself by interpreting you as an admirer of the man Murdoch,
since you compare his power with that of an English poet I respect? Are
you willing to relinquish control over the meaning of your own text?
Well, it intrigues me . . .
>>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.
So, all modernists are the same? Not very discriminating . . .
>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.
I have read his "Stone", with pleasure, but I do not understand your
point. Your generalizations about "English poetry" I find breathtaking in
their failure to recognize differences. I hadn't expected to find myself
in the position of defending Prynne, or any other English poets here,
since I'm relatively I'll equipped to do it, but I suspect you'll not
find many who are informed willing to engage with you unless you get a
tad less monological yourself.
For myself, I'm always pleased when someone takes the trouble to try to
give me access to a poetry they enjoy. I accept the gesture in good
faith, and with as good a will as I have in me at the time. In this
instance, I gather from Robin that Prynne's prose may increase my access
to his poetry. Perhaps it will reveal the precise nature of the
"contractual relationship" into which he is willing to enter. Good!
Cheers,
Trevor
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|