 |
 |
Sorry (damned mini-keyboard on the iPhone) I hit the send button instead of the delete! But since It's been sent I might as well finish the sentence: > And what 'literary theory'? I think I'm the only person to have made explicit reference to any literary theorists. To Giorgio Agamben and to Wellek and Warren. Prior to the recent mention of Reception Theory, A propos, I'm wondering how many poets here are much concerned with or even interested in literary theory? I tend to glaze over after a few pages, and I don't say that with any particular pride. Jamie > On 27 Oct 2016, at 18:08, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Sent from my iPad > And what 'literary theory'? I think I'm the only person to have made explicit reference to any literary theorists. To Giorgio Agamben >> >>> On 26 Oct 2016, at 14:52, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> Jamie and perhaps Peter, seem to be looking at this whole thing as if literary theory didn't exist. Jamie says he accepts the "problematical" nature of the discussion, yet always avoids areas that really address the "problematics". It is like an art critic having no notion of Cubism etc, and saying only photo-realist portraits can really be called paintings. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------Original Message------------------- >>> >>> >>> Tim Allen wrote: >>> >>> I am not saying that the addition of music doesn't change the reception of the words, because of course it does, but multiple things change the reception of the words. There is no such thing as pure words - there is no such thing as the unmediated, the unaccompanied poem - the words act within contexts of the accompanying world.