ok!
I have looked at the other thats and don't think I agree or would have
agreed. Man.y are ahead of me in the simplification of language and I do
tend to hold on the fuller way of saying things (a teenager asked me
recently what I meant when I said "whom". I hadn't been aware I'd said it;
she'd never heard the form); but I am very happy with the pursuit of
simplicity in other ways. The "that" is still there when we drop it, as you
might have suggested, because implied; and that's different to the
eradication of redundancy and repetition.
I tried the lines without "that", not considering the effect on the overall
rhythmic structure but just considering the effect on that particular
overall meaning; and I found it changed it from what I wanted, rather than
being as good or better - and that, sorry, is the test
L
On 23 July 2014 15:42, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ha, I was going to suggest the 'that's weren't necessary, & then you
> caught me in the final line, Lawrence. A gentle reminder that it's a
> written poem, eh?
>
> The cows as inscribed a bit of fun for sure...
>
> Doug
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 5:39 AM, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > A squeaking dog and a moaning cow - the cow
> >
> > could be multiple - unwittingly perform
> >
> > gross songs - twelve by twelve lines of hideousness
> >
> >
> > enjambed and end-stopped randomly; and they
> >
> > keep losing the count that they are not keeping.
> >
> > The knowledge that such music may not cease
> >
> >
> > makes up the consciousness of what's around.
> >
> > It dislocates experience from thought;
> >
> > and *that*, extensively, from verbal need.
> >
>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Recent publications: (With Sheila E Murphy) Continuations & Continuation 2
> (UofAPress).
> Recording Dates (Rubicon Press).
>
> Something else is out there
> godamnit
>
> And I want to hear it
>
> C.D.Wright
>
|