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