Thank you for the reply. I value much of the reply as a prose poem -
leaning toward a LANGUAGE text, altho I'd guess you'd hate that comparison.
But I always believe poets should break down fences, even their own, and
wander in other fields. Lashings of ellipsis and speaking to a reader 'off
(stage)' would create a text with intrigue and tension. I am tempted to
attack it as such myself, but that is a rude way to reply poet to poet. I
can only say I'd love you to do it.
Again, thanks for the reply. I must admit I'd missed the earlier discussion
because when I saw you had revised it, I went straight to the revised
edition. Hence missed the discussion. Mea culpa.
Bloody hot here today - 39 Celsius. I don't mind heat so much, but it was
also humid - that gets me down.
Andrew
On 29 November 2012 22:38, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andrew
>
> Well, neither. &, you know, it isn't a cross word puzzle. neither
> maybe.
>
> I suppose couple sitting could be cows. It would be quite
> interesting
> to try that, though I am going to have to internalise that somehow and
> then forget it before I can use it. Cows together can be very
> affectionate, social – you may well know this better than I, the
> last cows that I know went from here around 10 years ago and the
> fields are storaplebs – and I wonder sometimes if my fellow
> electorate would drink so much milk if they saw cows licking the muck
> off each other!
>
> I was thinking of human beings. one title rejected was couple on a
> sofa; that they take on bovine characteristics should not be taken –
> or was not intended to mean – that they are both female
>
> they could be; I have no problem with that; but I was thinking of a
> man and a woman.. structure of my brain I suppose. bulls low. not
> sure if that word is used. one sees cows more often.
>
> I recall one night, well I have heard it several times, a single
> cow
> coming to the edge of a small height and not seeing the rest of her
> herd; so she bellowed for them and it was an extraordinary sound that
> I classified as primitive – we were well away from brick buildings
> and sterilising machine etc. that was a sound I might have heard 10000
> years ago if I could afford the tax on my time machine. It was not
> just an average moo
>
> so it's a... whatever the word is... bovine noise. maybe a limited
> vocabulary – do you fancy it? – get out of the way – try eating
> this stuff – who you looking at?
>
> about covers their needs I think
>
> I call it lowing. I shall check, maybe ask next time I am on my
> favourite farm: it'll confirm my oddness for them!
>
> it doesnt take long to reach stasis as a couple if both are so
> inclined. I *think old age was introduced by Doug. There's no mention
> of age within the poem. (The sick person my friend lives with is not
> that old. The person I cared for a little was older than I by 25
> years; but she was a bit of a riot when she wasn't being ill. I didn't
> think of her as old.
>
> I explained the context to dispute the Swiftian charge. (That
> seemed
> the simplest way although close reading with a better knowledge of
> Swift's verse than I have might support Doug; but I would be
> surprised.
>
> I have in my memory the story told by a friend of a stay in
> hospital
> mid century when for some reason there was in him somehow an open
> wound – maybe dressings were being changed but it sounds rather odd.
> Nevertheless, he tells this story of wondering what the dreadful smell
> was, who the smelly bastard was, and realising it was him, from within
> him. In fact writing that down I see how preposterous it may sound so
> take it as a parable. I haven't seen this man since the early 70s so
> have no way of clarifying. Doesn't matter. Youths too can be smelly,
> make faeces etc. Age emphasises it.
>
> A human couple, a bit static.
>
> Damp gets everywhere. I am interested in it because in mining terms
> damp can mean explosive gas. This is not made anything of in the poem.
> It's just damp. Everything's damp just now. Well, it is here. Season
> of mist and mellow damp.
>
> There could well be explosive farts to come. I haven't written any
> yet though. Just the whispering. I am also interested in more than
> that kind of explosion – an environment that is dangerous, that can
> transform
>
> Best I can do really. I am not good at knowing what I am talking
> about in poems
>
> It's a pattern of words, a kind of sculpture, a verbal installation
>
> Maybe it's not very good
>
> on we go
>
> L
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Poetryetc: poetry and poetics"
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent:Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:11:19 +1100
> Subject:Re: couple sitting (revised)
>
> Are these bags of cow manure, still damp? Or is it in vernacular,
> 'two
> (old) bags' being ladies of many years? full of 'shit'? I can't
> puzzle it
> out, Lawrence - sorry.
>
> Andrew
> On 28 November 2012 22:59, Patrick McManus wrote:
>
> > L Ah that lowing
> > P
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Lawrence Upton
> > Sent: 28 November 2012 11:13
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: couple sitting (revised)
> >
> >
> >
> > �
> >
> > two bags, proud with shit,
> >
> > left near to each other,
> >
> > holding themselves in;
> >
> > neither says much, though
> >
> > they speak, both; lowly,
> >
> > silence imposing damp
> >
> > within each self,
> >
> > whispering; releasing them
> >
> > from meaning to mean,signifying
> >
> > their tightness; lowing
> >
>
> --
> Andrew
> http://hispirits.blogspot.com/
> 'Undercover of Lightness'
> http://walleahpress.com.au/recent-publications.html
> 'Shikibu Shuffle'
>
> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/new-from-aboveground-press-shikibu.html
>
>
--
Andrew
http://hispirits.blogspot.com/
'Undercover of Lightness'
http://walleahpress.com.au/recent-publications.html
'Shikibu Shuffle'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/new-from-aboveground-press-shikibu.html
|