> On 10/12/05 7:09 AM, "Stephen Vincent" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Antin's critique of Oppen's lyrics - these ceremonials that revolved around
>> Mary Oppen - he found to be oppressive (to Mary, as well) by virtue of their
>> omission of the actualities of their circumstances. (That the poems,
>> perhaps, gave no idea who Mary actually was, nor the daughter.)
>> The lecture, in part, was a critique of conventional lyricism and its
>> pitfalls.
>>
>> But I should re-look the actual work, too.
>
> Hmm. I would like to know more details. I know exactly how the Muse thing
> can be oppressive to said Muse, but at the same time, is Antin being a tad
> literal-minded?
>
In brief, he was suggesting that love lyric was abstracted in such a way as
to be 'not in or of this world'. But, again, I don't have his example (and
somebody filched my Oppen books). Antin, I believe, is not opposed to
abstraction, or obsessed with making language conform to a literal gauge.
It's when abstraction gets laced around an individual, the problems begin.
Or as Lew Welch once wrote:
Don't confuse your mistress with your muse
Or you will lose them both.
Interestingly, Antin compared Oppen's interest in abstraction/thought/truth
with the work of Paul Celan. (Did Celan writer love poems??)
Sorry, Alison, I cannot be more factual with my response.
Stephen V
Blog: http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
|