The adjectival force of poetic both qualifies and ameliorates --  poetic
truth, poetic justic, poetic license - it is often employed as a rhetorical
prop in justification of something. What exactly are we going on about here?
Is truth consensual? Is it independent of us. Is the "truth out there?" Can
we say "nothing but the truth"? The questions, arguments, counter arguments
can be endless.
Is autobiographical writing possible? The "self" has often been seen in
contemporary criticism as a suspect entity, a romantic fiction -- and the
"I" is but an empty signifier we are told. (see Candace Lang in Diacritics
in 1982 I believe). The act of mimesis has been undermined. All attempts to
write "truthful" accounts of what is inside and outside us, have for many
years been subject to severe scrutiny. Yet we still attach importance to the
notion of self in literature, and the vast majority believe that there is a
correspondence between the I and that funny creature called the poet. In the
present thread I think we take advantage of the fact that we straddle both
these worlds, the academic and the "ordinary".  I do not think that it makes
much difference, really, if a writer believes that there is a transparency
in language, it is after all a common held belief, and one that is thousands
of years old.  Whether transparency makes you more marketable is another
factor. Many readers like the "true life stories" indeed that is a genre in
itself.

Regarding my poem -- I apologise to Gerald England --but as far as I can see
I can't with this system write it as plain text --


Keston's riposte to my suggestion that he is drinking too much Cambridge
water -- was amusing. I still stand by what I said regarding the authority
of the French theorists you use -- your claim that B is an empiricist
because he used data about attendance figures to Beckett's Godot - is
ludicrous -in the playful sense of that word - very few of these recent
critics can be deemed empirical --indeed their whole raison D'etre is
ultimately anti-rationalist and anti-empirical in contrast to the
Anglo-American traditions. In this respect their empiricism is poetic.  I
don't mind that --however I dislike their use as authorities in arguments
that affect the lives of people --in the social and legal sphere
particularly - it is from my point of view a destructive force -and
responsible for the ubiquitous polarisation in our society that has led to
the break-up of the dialogue.  I doubt if a Derrida or the late Foucault
could using their intellect and repertoire of rhetorical  skills  save the
life of a poet as say Cicero did.
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%