On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:50:13 +0100 (BST), PR wrote:
>There is among poets a precious attitude to the
>word, and the letter, which makes them dote on a particular detail of
>formulation which to other people makes little or no difference.
Well, yes, to some extent this can become just ridiculous foible, and
I wish I'd been the Customs Officer dealing with our colleague who
wanted to be an "Author" not a "Writer" (of course, I can see the
distinction - but is it worth holding up the business of the day for,
etc). And yet, in many of my favourites, there's a carefulness, a
deliberation in the way words are used which others may feel borders
on pedantry, but is, surely, admirable (if poets don't take such care,
who does?). The dividing lines between exactness, pedantry and
silliness can be very thin at times. Editors, though, who have some
basic responsibility to "their" authors, would have to have very good
reasons for overriding even "quirks" - and the Oxford Book of Duff
Editions would surely have a special section for "Editors Who Knew
Better Than Their Authors"...
I'm reminded of the story of Richter (I think it was) conducting a
rehearsal of a Bruckner symphony, from B's score, with B present:
Richter (unable to read B's handwriting on the score): What note is
this please?
Bruckner (overawed by the Great Man): Any note! Any note you please!
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|