"Appling" is a formation like "blackberrying;" it's the kind of
creative usage an uninhibited poet displays.
I hope my misuse of "literal," which I've admitted, will no longer
serve as an excuse for sarcasm and diatribes.
My point was that poets coin new words. Not a controversial statement.
Sent from my iPod
On Feb 22, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Before this continues, I would like to point out that I was not
> being "strictly literal," whatever that means. That is an
> interpretation but not what I said. So please leave my name off
> this line.
> Words clearly depend on context, but there are limits to
> transpositions of parts of speech. One would not, I think, read a
> word like, say, "apple" and read it as "appling" and say that a line
> containing "the apple is red" can be interpreted as "the act of
> going to pick apples is communist."
> It is precisely the intersection of a range of significations and
> their syntactical position that constrains meaning; poems or any
> texts are not without some such constraints.
> >>> Marcia Karp <[log in to unmask]> 02/22/10 7:47 PM >>>
> Thank you, Carrol, for this.
> Carrol Cox wrote:
> > Diana Manister wrote:
> >> Dear Nancy,
> >> I think it's counterproductive to be strictly literal about
> >> in poetry.
> > Probably not possible. And if one wants to try to be literal, the
> > to start is with "literal," which if understood literally means
> > focusingon the letters, their sounds, the progression of those
> > etc etc. It would be the equivalent of geting so close to Picaso's
> > Gurnica that all the lines and shapes disappeared and all one was
> > examing were the brush strokes. As soon as you go by that 'level,'
> > youcan no longer be literal, for words literally focused on are
> > literally unitelligible. Look at "strokes" above. Does it refer to
> > strokes of an oar, a medical condition, parts of love-making,
> parts of a
> > lashing abut the fleet in the Royal Navy of the early 19th-c,
> > (as in "strokes of luck"), a misprint for "sokes" as in "stoes the
> > fireplace") or for "spokes" (as in a wheel), and so forth. (These
> > the kinds of difficulties, incidentally, that those who cry for a
> > "literal" interpretation of the Constituion purposely ignore, for to
> > take them into consideration is to show their hypocrisy.) To
> escape the
> > trap of literalism means putting the letters, and thus the word,
> in some
> > context, that is to identify the genre of the sentence, or larger
> > in which the word appears. (This is one version of what is called
> > hermeneutic circle: one must understand the whole to understand the
> > parts but the whole can only be understood by understandin the
> words. It
> > can be either a vicious or benevolent circle. And at that point it
> > really becomes complicated.)
> > Carrol