 |
 |
Well yes. Sounds pretty straightforward doesn't it. Almost obvious. So why is such an idea so problematic for some people? I don't know if anyone else has ever said this but I also think that the inversion of Creeley's statement, which would be 'content is never more than an extension of form' was the turn taken by some LANGUAGE poetries. Tim A. On 9 Apr 2009, at 23:15, Douglas Barbour wrote: > And, if you're going at it the way I think, Tim, then it's because > the form you engage, esplore, always leads to some kind of content > (words again). bpNichol always said he worked at innovating form > because 'content' (we just dont seem to have other words) is always > there (waiting?), but every new approach makes it new(ly). > > Doug > On 9-Apr-09, at 3:58 AM, Tim Allen wrote: > >> At a certain point in my writing Creeley's 'form is never more than >> an extension of content" became very important and began to make >> sense in a practical way. It is helpful - very helpful. And yes, >> there is certainly a division between those of us for whom it is >> helpful and those who find it unhelpful. >> >> I remember years ago - before I ever looked at Creeley closely - I >> had some notion in my head that content always possessed form, even >> though such form might be fluid, but that form did not possess >> content, not in the conceptual sense at least - a kind of common >> sense view I suppose. I changed my mind though, not through any >> theory, not even Creeley's, but through writing, especially writing >> long poems. I found that form possessed content. It is the nature >> of this 'content' that fascinated me and keeps me writing. > > Douglas Barbour > [log in to unmask] > > http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/ > > Latest books: > Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy) > http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664 > Wednesdays' > http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html > > The covers of this book are too far apart. > > Ambrose Bierce