Do I hear Houston calling (you a yellow-bellied sapsucker), Nate?
No, but you're a good sport to go down for the count with me on
this! As for my familiarity with "honeycombs," well, I like to
wear them in my hair because they make the butterflies stick
without damaging them the way bobby pins do (if that counts?).
But I actually had you in mind when I said "for all practical
purposes" re: "Bee Target" because you'd once said something
front- or back-channel (don't remember the occasion) about this
poem in particular as the one that would have to be taken on by
anyone advancing a wholistic or comprehensive reading of so-
called "difficult" poetry. This was in the context (I think)
of defending partial readings of Raworth poems, among others,
and of criticizing Brian McHale (was it?) for dismissing such
a partial reading on the grounds that it wasn't (and didn't
aim to be) a comprehensive one. (Agreed with you there, btw.)
So my point about "Bee Target" was just to suggest that if
its English syntax is such as to preclude or defeat its
comprehensibility, maybe we should try reading it (or some
_parts_ of it anyway) as in French ("paste" or "style," e.g.),
`a la the mode d'emploi of the first "stanza": "...TV with/
the sound off & frame hold in."
Candice
>Candice: there are three phrases in French in the poem--"ecriture fatale",
>"le silence des nuits, l'horreur des cimetieres", and "avec le savon". Plus
>two German words, mentions of Salamanca & Spain, and the Rose of Texas. The
>rest is in English. I take it you're familiar with honeycombs. I don't see
>what any of this has to do with your claim that the poem is "in French for
>all practical purposes", which it is certainly not.
>
>all best --N
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|