I worry about over-analysis; personally, I think we should let be be be.
> Imperative then? Ontological imperative: be!
>
> It's a great line.
>
> John
>
> _____
>
> From: British & Irish poets [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of GILES GOODLAND
> Sent: 16 June 2008 15:25
> To: John Hall
> Subject: Re: Wallace Stevens question
>
>
> I think that 'be' used as a noun would sound strange; but strangeness was
> the effect Stevens wanted; it is probably impossible to determine the
> part
> of speech Stevens intended (if he intended one).
>
> I prefer the reading
>
> Let 'be' be the finale of seem
>
> rather than
>
> Let (to) be be the finale of seem
>
> if it acts grammatically as a noun then perhaps it is one? In the poem
> anyway.
>
> Giles
>
>
>
>
|