Dunja, Nancy makes the same point that James Joyce did when he said that after a work of literature is finished and sent out into the world, the author sits back and pares his fingernails. Presumably because it is on its own, like a child or a stone. Diana
Luckily, a poem is not a stone.
Or, we can even put it this way: luckily, a stone can
be a sign.
--- Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is a particularly interesting perspective since
> a stone is a stone,
> and in the words of Hugh MacDiarmid, "We must
> reconcile ourselves to the
> stones, / Not the stones to us.
> Just as the poem cannot be reduced to intention or
> simple mimesis, it
> cannot be reduced to craft. The stone is
> impenetrable, only knowable
> in many facets but not simply the ones we see
> individually and equally
> not a single core we must find. But the
> stonecutter's whole life may
> affect how she shapes it.
> "On a Raised Beach" is a magnificent long poem of
> stones as language.
> >>> David Boyd <[log in to unmask]> 09/02/06 5:38
> AM >>>
> In a message dated 01/09/2006 22:42:17 GMT Daylight
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> Peter wrote:
> The poem as a perceptual device of one's own world,
> and one's
> own experience is much more relevant.
> I take it you buy into the French view that the
> text exists apart from
> human being that created it. Perhaps that old
> scenario of monkeys
> typing texts
> can be updated to computers creating texts
> unrelated to human
> leaving readers in solipsistic bliss. Diana
> A lot of forays into and around and around the
> aesthetic theory maze are
> being made just now !
> - isn't it usually a case of layers of perception
> and multiple
> / meanings ? - eg., about which particular facets
> of the
> skilfully-cut gem happened to sparkle for you as the
> perceiver at that
> moment and in your particular state of [emotional
> *and* factual] mind.
> thinking of a wellknown biblical image, isn't our
> perception as
> adults of such things often of the 'but through a
> glass, darkly' kind ?
> Similarly, this kind of extraneous 'knowledge' may
> reveal some more
> facets but often
> at the expense many of other [ often much brighter]
> ones but doesn't it
> inevitably and irrevocably alter that experience ?
> But, however we define them, suppose we're still
> discussing and
> cut gemstones as opposed to crude and ugly lumps of
> coal or rock or
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around