Douglas wrote:
>You should only write if you have something to say. Writing for the
>sake of writing is narcissistic and leads to writing about writing
>cos there is no other subject matter.
I think I know what Douglas means, although I have the same wariness
about having "something to say". Usually a disaster.
Mandelstam said (more or less) if it was possible to ignore a poetic
impulse, it wasn't an authentic impulse and would wither away no matter
what fertilisers were applied... which I guess might include the kinds
of bullshit one tells oneself in order to keep going, out of a kind of
habitual self-designation as "poet". In any case, I attempt to live by
the dictum that if a poem won't happen, if I am distracted by
insufficient finances, life matters, humdrum prosaic necessities or the
mundane paranoias all poets are heir to, then the poem can slip back to
the protean limbo from whence it threatened. If, however, it won't let
me go, I'll write it. If it means six months without a poem, so be it.
But I believe that poetry has no justification whatsoever, and needs none
beyond itself.
Solipsism? Always a danger, but not inevitable. Inner/outer are
separated by extremely permeable membranes, and the inner is where poetry
is made.
Best
Alison
PO Box 186
Newport VIC 3105
AUSTRALIA
MASTHEAD online: http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/5662
Home page: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/bronte/338
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|