> Can language itself be a (or the) muse?
Yes, Doug. I suspect we "also" look for figures or persons (men and/or
women) to carry the ball - that is to say, those with whom we invest the
powers of language.
But it is a question. If I read Sappho and her work (language) - or a good
translation - releases a charge in me to write, is it Sappho or her language
that constitutes the function of a muse??
This says nothing of the power of our own language in and of itself; a
phrase - for example - that pops out from seeming nowhere, that acts as a
catalyst to a whole unwinding of either one poem or a series of poems. About
twenty years ago I was driving down the street and the word, "walking"
started repeating itself over and over in my head - like a mantra that would
not go away - and then it began to add on clauses. I stopped my car. Pulled
out the note book and went on for several pages. This experience kept
happening for a couple of months, filling my little notebook - not
necessarily the initiatory word "walking" but the rhythm of it - giving
charge to one improvisation after another. A few months later, it stopped,
exhausted itself. A couple of years later, Mark Weiss threw out about half
of, helped eliminate the shaggy parts from many of these improvs, and then
we had a book!
I am sure many of us have comparable experiences - the word as catalyst and
muse.
I always find it kind and complimentary when someone tells they have started
a series of something after reading my work. A kind of wonderful genetic DNA
about the process. Language (words) a property that belongs to no one.
Stephen V
http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
|