A very different case, I think; the complex nature of the
relationship is in fact explicitly a concern of After Lorca. Like
Landor's dialogues with the dead, in which the dead are clearly
fictional characters with attributes we associate with their
namesakes. And of course Spicer's verse (and prose) is very very fine.
Mark
At 10:12 AM 2/15/2006, you wrote:
>One of my favorite "correspondences" with the dead is Jack Spicer's "Letters
>to Lorca." Exploitation would not be the word. Maybe, we can look at it the
>other way around. The dead (maybe not just the writings of the dead) are the
>ones that are shaking up the living (for better or worse) good poems and bad
>poems, bad actors (imitators and worse) and good actors, etc.
>
>Stephen V
>
>
>
> > 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
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
|