My last two responses don't seem to have gotten by my own email server. So
just one more try from this location:
Thanks, but any impatience is beside the point. All I said was that it is
the power of the poem that makes the difference. One is subordinated to the
other (bio to poetry). This is the order of things, yes? Not my personal
preference. It does not imply that bio efforts are unimportant. Only that
their importance is in relation to the poetry. No big powerful poem (or
oeuvre), no scholars tracking down TWL's pub. history. Seems obvious?
--On Friday, July 29, 2005 4:52 PM +0000 CR Mittal <[log in to unmask]>
> Dear Ken,
> One can understand your impatience with the history of a composition
> vis-à-vis the composition itself. And take heart, yours is not the sole
> voice. For the composition remains the primary thing and the
> deliberations about the history of a composition, valuable in their own
> right, do at times seem, to quote from another context, “inert and
> extraneous, like so much scaffolding erected around a building that
> remains obstinately and mysteriously invisible”, and at other times “a
> sordid boon”! All the same, there are scholars who devote a lifetime
> exploring the history of a composition because it is a passion with them.
> Just as yours and so many others’ is for the creation itself. And why
> not? In great art, as in TWL for instance, one looks for
> “interpenetration and metamorphosis”.