 |
 |
Hi Jeff / yeh, I agree. I don't think such readings are limited to poetry, either. Over the last few days I've been fascinated by film-maker Harry Smith's reading of Brecht's Mahagonny, where he draws out all kinds of cabbalistic meanings based on the structure of the play: meanings that make complete sense, but are probably very far from Brecht's own intentions. Or, first time I read Capital, I found it almost impossible to understand, because I don't really get economics. So I read it as a huge experimental zombie novel, which worked. My problem with your insistence on 'free associative' readings in poetry, then, isn't because I think its particularly outlandish, but because it seems that for you the ease with which such readings are available is your only criteria for defining a poem. Thats just as reductive as those people who, staggeringly, still think a poem has to "rhyme". I think its very dangerous to glibly say things aren't poems, just because you don't like them. Sean