 |
 |
That's a nice try, Luke, but not all writings (nor writers) aspire to be on good terms with readers: variously they shout, harangue, lecture, sneer, spit, lie and shake a fist in the direction of an audience. Some might even commit suicide in full view, while others are intent on picking the reader's pockets. A great many set out to bamboozle or intellectually swindle. There's as much fraud in poetry as MP's expense accounts. david On 20 February 2018 at 15:28, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I was thinking of the energy as kinetics "(of a work of art) depending on > movement for its effect": the movement from inspiration etc. to reader. > So that the writing process itself brings reader and writer into accord. > > That doesn't seem especially novel, it's true. > > On 20 February 2018 at 11:06, Jamie McKendrick <00001ae26018af73-dmarc- > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Will try to track it down when I’ve finished some very late work. Take >> away the E trope and, as Tim says, it’s probably not that far off many >> poets’ idea of what they’re doing. >> J >> >> >> >> >> On 19 Feb 2018, at 11:56, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> I'd be intrigued to read, if somewhere accessible. >> >> Luke >> >> On 18 February 2018 at 15:45, Jamie McKendrick < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Oddly enough, Larkin says something very similar, but a more >>> straightforwardly. (Somewhere.) >>> J >>> >>> >>> On 18 Feb 2018, at 14:28, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> Gonna bump this question. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Luke >>> >>> On 17 February 2018 at 12:53, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> I like it >>>> >>>> A poem is energy transferred from where the poet got it (he will >>>> have some several causations), by way of the poem itself to, all the way >>>> over to, the reader. >>>> >>>> Can only think of one thing I've written that fits the bill. Won't post >>>> it! >>>> >>>> Does the definition have much currency? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Luke >>>> >>> >>> >> >