>This is not to say that it is poor writing, though no musicality would I
>associate with it.
Echoing Keston's post on shifting definitions of 'musicality'. Melody -
Rhythm and Noise for this customer.
>Yet show no capacity to endure. What is important to ask sooner or later is
>what makes a poem or poet's work endure?
Why priveledge that which deploys the endurable? Is the ephemeral not worth
its salt? Aren't we into another tedious version of 'high' cultural and
'low' cultural values? Language is not an immutable block of stone, not
even chips off that old block. It is social and conversational and mutable
and dispersive. It might be worth discussing here viewpoints on whether
communication can be considered as fixative or dispersal of linguistic
>If say a poet writes finely crafted work,
That's the old block speaking.
>But what the "real poet" must seek is what of his/her work endures? How can
>we tell? We can tell from the poetry of the past because we see that it
>still is being studied and read.
So, er - produce more of the same, imitate the old 'masters'? There's a
log-jam in Malagasy society caused by ancestor veneration, means - since
when one dies one becomes wise - only upstarts try to do anything different
from those ways that their ancestors practiced.
Please, echoing Ric's call for focus on the stated arena for discussion here:
>"for practitioners of current poetry and
>poetics, with emphasis on recent postmodern and innovative poetries".
>Listen to the worlds we live in, the social texts we inhibit or deny by
>our writings. What do such values of denial tell us about our work(s) as
>writers today? How does language move in our lives?
Does 'constructive' writing not 'belong' in clubs, pubs, cafes,
marketplaces? Does our 'musicality' not converse with an extraordinary
weave of rhythms (social, tidal, work, leisure, mediatized, mechanized, and
so on) of which we have barely a grasp. Is that not something to be
love and love
ps. The Quashkai, nomadic people, take carpets into the desert with them.
The designs on the carpets represent their gardens, which they cannot take
along. They roll out the carpet and dance. The carpets are woven by the
women. While they weave they talk. A young person starts at the perimeter
of the carpet and gradually 'makes their way in'. All of the paterns result
from the key 'groundnote' at the carpet's 'centre'. When one gets older, or
whatever, one arrives at the place in the weaving process (this is
ludicrously hierachical, but something resonates still) at which one can
change the 'feel' of the entire pattern, change the look of the rug. The
pattern is continually changing, varying. Function is socially dispersive.