This isn't directed at you, Rebecca--just a convenient place to jump
in. Why do we/does Geraldine/persist in calling this collaboration?
Doesn't that involve mutual volition? Why isn't it appropriation? I'm
guessing that "collaboration" sounds more important, and
"appropriation" less politically-correct--though Donne is hardly a
pre-literate society.
Mark
At 08:07 AM 2/15/2006, you wrote:
>Ah, sorry, David, Saba! the wrong name came to my
>late night memory, but there was at times little
>direct connection between your version and the Italian
>original, and many poets have done this, writing
>'versions' from an original, so it's not a criticism,
>but just my wondering at the difference/s between
>these various ways of collaborating with the dead?
>
>best,
>
>Rebecca
>--- David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
> > > > the Donne poem
> > > > she exploits has no direct connection with what
> > > > she's writing about,
> > >
> > > Does this matter? for instance, I thought David's
> > > 'Ungaretti' version at times had little direct
> > > connection with the original.
> > >
> >
> > It certainly didn't have any connectiuon with
> > Ungaretti as the original was
> > by Umberto Saba.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "R S" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Fascicle 2
> >
> >
> > > Oh, well, actually I like Geraldine's poem, which
> > I've
> > > previously read, and don't find that she
> > 'exploits'
> > > Donne though there are moments where the
> > repetition of
> > > the 'no' and 'the body' seem to have a sort of
> > > dissipating effect.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I have wondered at this issue
> > of
> > > collaboration with the dead ever since I read
> > Lucie
> > > Brock-Broidio's _Master Letters_ which is based
> > upon
> > > Emily Dickinson's 'master' letters, or Amy
> > Clampitt's
> > > poems on Keats or Lynda Hull's poems on Tolstoi,
> > or
> > > Edward Hirsch's poems on Weil. I guess it could be
> > > argued that the principle of post-modernism is
> > > cannablism, that all texts even those by
> > exceptional
> > > writers, are meat to be digressed, digested into
> > new
> > > cells. And what's the difference/s between Monk
> > > collaborating with Donne or David's recent version
> > of
> > > Ungaretti or Stephen's 'Sappho' and 'Stein' poems
> > > which may bear little or varying degrees to the
> > > original and use it as a springboard? So in that
> > > sense, I guess I wonder more at Monk's essay that
> > > accompanies the collaboration, is it because she
> > is
> > > collaborating with the texts of canonical male
> > writers
> > > and so has to create a framework to do so?
> > >
> > > > the Donne poem
> > > > she exploits has no direct connection with what
> > > > she's writing about,
> > >
> > > Does this matter? for instance, I thought David's
> > > 'Ungaretti' version at times had little direct
> > > connection with the original.
> > >
> > > > in the second it is not a good idea to
> > extensively
> > > > quote someone who
> > > > is so obviously a better writer, the whole thing
> > > > reads to me like
> > > > petulant graffitti
> > >
> > > Well, all I can say is that it didn't seem like
> > > 'petulant graffitti', and I do think I've had
> > enough
> > > of my share of 'petulant graffitti' to know what
> > it
> > > is. Anyway, this is just my take on it, I am not
> > > making some Universal Law, so feel free to
> > disregard
> > > if it gets your goat,
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > Rebecca
> > > --- Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah, a lesson in etiquette. My mind had skipped
> > over
> > > > all that, which I
> > > > read as an attempt to understand the why of a
> > poem
> > > > that Dave couldn't
> > > > otherwise decipher rather than as a comment on
> > > > Geraldine's
> > > > personality structure in general. You seem to
> > have
> > > > remembered the
> > > > parts I forgot and forgotten the parts I
> > remember,
> > > > like "Not a good
> > > > idea on Geraldine's part I'd say: in the first
> > place
> > > > the Donne poem
> > > > she exploits has no direct connection with what
> > > > she's writing about,
> > > > in the second it is not a good idea to
> > extensively
> > > > quote someone who
> > > > is so obviously a better writer, the whole thing
> > > > reads to me like
> > > > petulant graffitti," which is perhaps impatient
> > but
> > > > is certainly a
> > > > comment on the process of the poem and precedes
> > the
> > > > things you note.
> > > > I have no idea, based on what I read, whether
> > > > there's animus involved
> > > > or just more of that impatience.
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking forward to Geraldine's NY reading.
> > I'm
> > > > very intrerested
> > > > in reading as performance but totally
> > uninterested
> > > > in poetry as
> > > > performance. Somebody said it in this
> > discussion--if
> > > > it doesn't work
> > > > on the page it's something, but not poetry. What
> > I
> > > > hope for--what I
> > > > always hope for--is a reading that enlightens
> > me
> > > > about how to read.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > At 06:43 PM 2/14/2006, you wrote:
> > > > >On 15/2/06 9:52 AM, "Mark Weiss"
> > > > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Your point being that some critical
> > commentary
> > > > > > engages, is useful, others not? Is the
> > criterion
> > > > > > whether or not you agree with it?
> > > > >
> > > > >No; my point is that comments like "Geraldine's
> > > > desire to be noticed" or
> > > > >accusations that she "splatters her ego" over
> > > > Donne; or indeed that she is
> > > > >writing "extortions" rather than poems, and
> > snide
> > > > comments about her and
> > > > >Alan Halsey's "small business", seem to me to
> > be
> > > > directed towards the author
> > > > >rather than to the poem itself.
> > > > >
> > > > >Personally, I enjoy the music and rhythms that
> > > > Geraldine has made with her
> > > > >collaging of Donne, and the slippages of
> > meaning
> > > > between the two
> > > > >sensibilities. They are also, as she says,
> > quite
> > > > fond homages and
> > > > >expressions of admiration for those poets. I
> > don't
> > > > take it amiss if nobody
> > > > >else thinks the same; that is their right and I
> > > > don't expect people to agree
> > > > >with me. But I can't see how clear personal
> > animus
> > > > is a useful basis for
> > > > >literary criticism.
> > > > >
> > > > >Best
> > > > >
> > > > >A
> > > > >
> > > > >Alison Croggon
> > > > >
> > > > >Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> > > > >Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
> > > > >Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
|
