At 09:49 AM 7/10/2007, you wrote:
>On 7/10/07, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>At 07:08 AM 7/10/2007, you wrote:
>> >Much to agree with below.
>> >
>> >For me, the main effect has been on the editing process. It is far
>> >easier to edit on the computer - to shift things around, to map out
>> >the white-space. I wonder if the visibility of white-space started
>> >with the introduction of a mechanical means of  production?
>>
>>Not uncommon in the middle ages for poems to be written in continuous
>>flow, like prose. Vellum was very expensive, poetry meant tobe read
>>aloud anyway to usually illiterate audiences.
>>
>> >  It's
>> >easier now to structure the poem - longer editing processes because
>> >it's easier and enables procrastination - but also easier to place the
>> >words on the page, the poem as sculpture. I think this only starts
>> >with type-writer.
>>
>>Nope, off by a couple of centuries.
>
>I don't recall in my critical reading - which I admit may not as wide
>as yours - where white-space was important in the production of a poem
>in medeival ages. Or anywhere in between up until the 20th century.
>I'd be interested in seeing, saying, Keat's Hyperion in it's original
>printed context. Looking at coleridge's "In Xanadu" at the British
>Museum, there's little to suggest there - and he was writing with a
>quill pen - any indication about white-space thinking.


The antecedent was "the poem as sculpture." Check out George Herbert. 
Shaped poems were all the rage for a while.

But in terms of "white space thinking," in cultures with strong 
caligraphic traditions, like Japan and China, it seems to have been 
present long before moveable type.


>> >Also, there is now less of a gap between a poet producing a poem and
>> >seeing it in print; compare and contrast the means of production for
>> >Chaucer with Eliot with Prynne. I wonder how he writes his stuff? By
>> >hand? I'd have to say Cris Cheek as a modern exemplar.
>>
>>
>>Imagine writing with a quill pen.
>
>Yes, I see your point. I have written with a quill pen, also normal
>graphics pens, automatic pens etc. Most of the scriptor's energy goes
>into the flow of the text, rather than the actual white-space on the
>page. But to get from Chaucer to his readership, he'd have to go
>through a scriptorium and other intermediaries, particularly for the
>embellishments (unless you are claiming Chaucer or his contemporaries
>did that as well), and I wonder how much attention *they* paid to the
>white-space? Or, indeed, the original hand itself. I'd be interested
>in hearing any comments you have on medeival production method.


We seem to have misunderstood each other. I was referring (as was 
Creeley) to the writer's experience, and I understood "seeing it in 
print" as having the finished product in hand. Chaucer of course 
never saw anything in print. But if you mean commercial production, 
Chaucer may very well have seen such a lot faster than many of us get 
our books back from the publisher. Technology isn't the primary delay.

As a matter of fact, Creeley's experioence and mine differ. For me a 
new medium is just like the old one once I become used to it. 
Astonishingly, writing that appears to be spontaneous and certainly 
flows easily on the page used to be written with cumbersome tools 
like quills. Tristram Shandy for example. I assume that Sterne was 
used to the available technology.


>Roger
>--
>My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
>"In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons."
>Roman Proverb

Mark