Print

Print


Luckily, a poem is not a stone. 
Or, we can even put it this way: luckily, a stone can
be a sign.

Dunja

--- 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.
> Cheers,
> Nancy 
> 
> >>> David   Boyd <[log in to unmask]> 09/02/06 5:38
> AM >>>
>  
> In a message dated 01/09/2006 22:42:17 GMT Daylight
> Time,  
> [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
> the 
> human being that created it. Perhaps that old 
> scenario of monkeys
> typing texts 
> can be updated to computers creating texts 
> unrelated to human
> experience, 
> 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
> perspectives  
> / meanings ? - eg.,  about which particular facets
> of the 
> author/maker's 
> skilfully-cut gem happened to sparkle for you as the
> perceiver at  that
> particular 
> moment and in your particular state of [emotional
> *and* factual]  mind.
> Or, 
> thinking of a wellknown biblical image, isn't our
> perception as 
> 'knowing' 
> 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
> always 
> inevitably and irrevocably alter that  experience ?
> But, however we define them, suppose  we're still
> discussing and
> looking-at 
> cut gemstones as opposed  to crude and ugly lumps of
> coal or rock or
> stone.....
>  
> 
> David   
>  
>  
>  
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com