 |
 |
Do you suppose that the weight of the tune of past art, as speech, is mediated more through *society *than it is *literary theory*? Are those two interestingly opposed? Luke On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hm, well your reply reminds me of a friend who told me that some music > students have a really good grasp of theory in the abstract, but no > understanding of its sociological significance. He seemed entirely > unwilling or unable to fully separate out the two. > > > as cultures develop, the voice of authority in letters creates a space > for its antithesis > > I seem *entirely *unable to (easily) find a copy of *I HATE SPEECH*. So > all I seem able to add, for now, is that listening to e.g. TS Eliot speak, > yes it is reified, but surely also cries of loss. How does he do that? I'm > chewing on 'tunes' too, and am really nowhere able to say much on Prynne. > > Maybe my retort, if I have one, is that sensitivity can be for reified > language, but the kicker is in society. > > Luke > > > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:40 AM, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Luke >> >> I'm having to slowly chew the notion of Prynne being about tunes but I am >> very interested in your concern about reified speech. As I understand the >> roots of reified literary speech reach back a long way. It seems clear that >> writing began as accountancy but that as cities appeared a need arose for a >> public script that SPOKE. This wasn't an act of one generation or place but >> something that kept happening throughout old civilizations. The reason for >> this need for writing to speak seems to lie in authority, or rather the >> need to project authority. But, paradoxically, as cultures develop, the >> voice of authority in letters creates a space for its antithesis: the >> pompous pronouncements of the loyal scribes become punctuated by verbal >> farts, two finger salutes and cries of loss. Punctuated and signed. >> Which is where I HATE SPEECH falls down.Although where it stands is is in >> opposition to modern day 'real language of men' poets and too to the >> regressive crowd control of 'spoken word'. >> >> David >> >> >> On 17 August 2017 at 05:44, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Talking about hope... Here is the 1st (really this time) full draft of >>> my essay! I'm *really *excited by it, though some parts so gauche. >>> Well, I'm posting it because what's missing for me, is an idea of >>> *order*. And isn't that what what Prynne is about, *tunes*? Cadence >>> seems less absolute. So that's a question, >>> All the best, and my apologies for the slow drip of sense. >>> >>> Luke >>> >>> ps in docx format this time, too. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> > it remains a hope and trust >>>> >>>> yes of course. >>>> >>>> > I’d rather read Betjeman than Benjamin >>>> >>>> maybe so, but I guess quotes are better said than read. >>>> >>>> Thank you for the replies, >>>> Luke >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It’s good, it’s very good, to see that there are (still) those who >>>>> think about poetry in such terms. I could attach it to Wordsworth easier >>>>> than to, say, the Earl of Rochester. Of course it remains a hope and trust >>>>> rather than a demonstrable condition, doesn’t it. I could attach it to >>>>> Wordsworth more easily than to, say, the Earl of Rochester. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, poetry should represent our better nature, if it doesn’t >>>>> something is wrong. I can’t see why the bracketed “experimental” should >>>>> claim any superiority in this. I don’t know who decides what figures in >>>>> human history; it might depend who wins. >>>>> >>>>> Each to his inclinations but myself I’d rather read Betjeman than >>>>> Benjamin. Oh dear, now i’ve upset them all again. >>>>> >>>>> PR >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 14 Aug 2017, at 10:13 pm, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In case anyone feels like further discussion: >>>>> >>>>> > how any of these versions of experimental poetry helps anyone to >>>>> know the world better, to improve their understanding, to contribute to a >>>>> strong moral position or are in some way good for us. >>>>> >>>>> The obvious answer is that (experimental) poetry reflects our better >>>>> nature. And though I doubt that it is good for any one person, it could be >>>>> that the arts somehow figure (I should read Benjamin really) not just in >>>>> human history but our memory of it, in a similarly virtuous way. >>>>> >>>>> Luke >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >