press free press RESPOND
A monthly series of active reading.
press free press RE:RESPOND
Re:active re:reading.
1)
10/12 - 01/13
The personal is something which is driving these poets, but in very individual ways. Returning to the Hampson I sense that sense of absence; I wonder about what surrounds the language in terms of where it has been lifted from. This idea that language always comes from somewhere else, somewhere outside the poem. The poem giving it a new context constructed by the poet. A Davenport cell is a context, a bit of Waffle is, the way in which Flick moves in Crewe’s constructed landscape for it. Context of and for the poet is of interest to me. How / where / why the text is built into a context and where this then fits in a wider context of poetics or art or literature.
//
The 'personal' and the single consciousness - we often talk about multi-vocality and multi-consciousness but this sense of or rejection of the 'personal' brings us to the single consciousness who is reading, who is of course one of many (potentially, conceptually) but singly is reading 'for' - 'reading for' another like him/her? Is this naive? Is this why writers resist the personal? There is the heightened persona personal of Robinson, or the fantastic figure of Flick in Crewe - do these personae represent this desire of consciousness?
I’m changing the subject, but … … How do the poets show their influences? Terry re-visions Queneau. Davenport references everyone and the title is from Bob Cobbing but also a near-homonym for Apollinaire etc. etc. But both are finding new territory. Davenport presents us with a grid that for Mac Low was a means to a poem, there it is the poetic text.
//
The action of reading as an experience which should be challenged and is under construction: Davenport builds cells of multiple and physical reading strategies. I think he is not only asking how to write but how to read. Terry also challenges my how to read. With James Davies' comments in my mind returning to this I see it as a more formulaic piece, asking questions of reading in relation to the book, reading as a movement from and between and across ideas/structures/experiences. The awareness of how we read becomes important to me. Or how we are reading. Or might re-read.
Our reading/re-reading brings with it a context
There is something fragile and breakable within all these voices for me. You touched on Fowler and Kelly building a joint vocabulary or voice, but it still breaks away in the poems' structure. This is something occurring in the Ashcroft too, is there a pre-occupation with attempting to find a voice? Not one of the texts function with one voice. Is there a pre-occupation with attempting to find a voice? Not one of the texts functions as one voice. Is there a pre-occupation with attempting to find a voice? Not one of the texts functions in one voice.
with – as – in –
//
To speak the poet must appropriate - covertly, consciously, subconsciously, unconsciously, conspicuously, inconspicuously, subtly, unsubtly, from seeing something, from hearing something, from out-sourcing, from in-sourcing, from delegating the work of 'poet', from taking on the work of 'poet' -
voicing voices voices
voices voice voicing
voice voicing voices
Vocabulary is important
Choices of vcices
Why does the same word(s) crop up in two different books?
e.g. 'dock leaves' in Kelly/Fowler and Crewe.
Let’s think of the texts among these eight books that seem to be more actively referencing a specific space i.e. site in which the poet finds herself – in Terry, Crewe, Ashcroft, Robinson, I read this.
Hampson and Davenport are explicitly re-locating the site of another text or texts. The textual site. In Terry, Crewe, Ashcroft, Robinson, in their sites – from their sites – what can writing do? What is it trying to do?
//
The poetics then as a functioner of language is a body moving form one body to another. Body is built and re-built. Body is writer is language is book is voice is reader is context is always moving away from me
We have placed these bodies alongside each other to arrive at more bodies.
Some questions
- Do we resist or depend on the book?
- How is the book being played with temporally?
- Where is gender in these works?
These are questions I always ask and have been asking and will continue to ask of these and more bodies.
Kelly & Fowler / Hampson (10/12)
Welton / Davenport (11/12)
Robinson / Ashcroft (12/12)
Crewe / Terry (01/13)
more press free press RESPOND
Showing posts with label Philip Terry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philip Terry. Show all posts
08/02/2013
08/01/2013
press free press RESPOND
A monthly series of active reading.
4)
Sarah Crewe, 'flick invicta'
Philip Terry, 'Advanced Immorality'
Thinking about the place of language as a whole and how it functions. How does/can it move from the poetic to the conceptual? Is there a difference? There is a distance between how language is functioning throughout the different texts in the Terry. The movement of how we read is affected, or how I read.
Crewe’s language functions in a different way, it functions as poetic throughout, the movement of it coming from a series of internal perspectives. Perspective of the language and what is placed against interests me in her work. The gaps are visible by space. I kept thinking these poems were skeletal figures being eroded again and again. I’m interested
//
In 'Advanced Immorality' and 'A Berlin Notebook' Terry finds poetic structures that neatly hold the tension between the economical/sparse and the more expansive, more speech-like tendencies in the writing. These are composed in units of text that are counted and repeated for instance, in 'Advanced Immorality':
where the numbers indicate lines.
In ‘A Berlin Notebook’ the rigorous count-structure allows a sampling of space/place, so the ‘businessmen’ fill the 12 allocations above and 4 allocations below the ‘free’ text, suggesting that they are a sample of countless businessmen. Picked out for the middle section is, ‘in sunglasses, on a cord, on a bike, mouth like a handlebar moustache’ an image that is picked out from a countless background.
Crewe’s structural methods are more oblique, yet we see a similar intention in ‘flick / Newsham park’
//
The reader and how they read is being considered by both. There is a sense that order of language is important but there are ways this can be broken in the reading experience. The 'Berlin Notebook' interests me because of its ordered quality but also its insistence and constant re-ordering of experience and the space of the city. Structure then allows for the language to move in this freer way - for associations to be built in the reading
Building of and taking away 'FLICK' in Crewe is built and taken away. Flick is object, body, person, thing and somehow breaks apart the actual structure of the collection.
Movement between pieces is difficult for me in the Terry, I want to spend more time in one place than the other or figure out how one is working differently. How he functions as a writer is interesting to think about then as he is doing multiple things, he is making language function in multiple ways. Does this make us think about the potential of language, the potential of how we can write. Is Terry commenting on the functions of the poetic? The fact the poetic and its meaning can shift in one volume? What is his poetic if it moves throughout?
//
I would compare Terry's book with last month's Joanne Ashcroft. In each we are able to observe how the writing shifts given a new set of rules. Perhaps Terry's shifts are more extreme - HAMLET certainly seems to follow a conceptual writing tradition.
There is something in Crewe's positioning of text that seems more instinctive and responsive to the point where it could be said a structure is not required?
I am glad to have found the poem ‘Advanced Immorality’ and will return to it, yet there is something in coupling it to Appeal in Air by Philip Davenport, how that is a real book-object that is perhaps interesting. Or is this a fetishistic response to Davenport’s book?
I would also like to mention the tendency in both Crewe and Terry to use two-word units e.g. witchhunt graffiti / fountain obsolete (Crewe) and trotting dog / Flowering orchid (Terry) – this tendency to engage in two-word units is intriguing!
//
The economics of poetics and where poetry finds itself today, should a poetic book be a place where there are multiple sides. I kept seeing a book on the shelf called 'Poet's Market' and there is a need to think about that, where is this.
The multiple uses of the book as a space to not only offer a narrative or an aesthetic like Crewe but a space for experiment and many poetics functioning at one time. Is the book appropriate for poetics? Is there more we can do? Should it change? Can we define our own poetic or 'a' poetic?
Saarah Crewe, 'flick invicta', Oystercatcher Press
Philip Terry, 'Advanced Immorality', if p then q press
more press free press RESPOND
A monthly series of active reading.
4)
Sarah Crewe, 'flick invicta'
Philip Terry, 'Advanced Immorality'
Thinking about the place of language as a whole and how it functions. How does/can it move from the poetic to the conceptual? Is there a difference? There is a distance between how language is functioning throughout the different texts in the Terry. The movement of how we read is affected, or how I read.
Crewe’s language functions in a different way, it functions as poetic throughout, the movement of it coming from a series of internal perspectives. Perspective of the language and what is placed against interests me in her work. The gaps are visible by space. I kept thinking these poems were skeletal figures being eroded again and again. I’m interested
//
In 'Advanced Immorality' and 'A Berlin Notebook' Terry finds poetic structures that neatly hold the tension between the economical/sparse and the more expansive, more speech-like tendencies in the writing. These are composed in units of text that are counted and repeated for instance, in 'Advanced Immorality':
3 6 3
7
1 2 1
where the numbers indicate lines.
In ‘A Berlin Notebook’ the rigorous count-structure allows a sampling of space/place, so the ‘businessmen’ fill the 12 allocations above and 4 allocations below the ‘free’ text, suggesting that they are a sample of countless businessmen. Picked out for the middle section is, ‘in sunglasses, on a cord, on a bike, mouth like a handlebar moustache’ an image that is picked out from a countless background.
Crewe’s structural methods are more oblique, yet we see a similar intention in ‘flick / Newsham park’
//
The reader and how they read is being considered by both. There is a sense that order of language is important but there are ways this can be broken in the reading experience. The 'Berlin Notebook' interests me because of its ordered quality but also its insistence and constant re-ordering of experience and the space of the city. Structure then allows for the language to move in this freer way - for associations to be built in the reading
Building of and taking away 'FLICK' in Crewe is built and taken away. Flick is object, body, person, thing and somehow breaks apart the actual structure of the collection.
Movement between pieces is difficult for me in the Terry, I want to spend more time in one place than the other or figure out how one is working differently. How he functions as a writer is interesting to think about then as he is doing multiple things, he is making language function in multiple ways. Does this make us think about the potential of language, the potential of how we can write. Is Terry commenting on the functions of the poetic? The fact the poetic and its meaning can shift in one volume? What is his poetic if it moves throughout?
//
I would compare Terry's book with last month's Joanne Ashcroft. In each we are able to observe how the writing shifts given a new set of rules. Perhaps Terry's shifts are more extreme - HAMLET certainly seems to follow a conceptual writing tradition.
There is something in Crewe's positioning of text that seems more instinctive and responsive to the point where it could be said a structure is not required?
I am glad to have found the poem ‘Advanced Immorality’ and will return to it, yet there is something in coupling it to Appeal in Air by Philip Davenport, how that is a real book-object that is perhaps interesting. Or is this a fetishistic response to Davenport’s book?
I would also like to mention the tendency in both Crewe and Terry to use two-word units e.g. witchhunt graffiti / fountain obsolete (Crewe) and trotting dog / Flowering orchid (Terry) – this tendency to engage in two-word units is intriguing!
//
The economics of poetics and where poetry finds itself today, should a poetic book be a place where there are multiple sides. I kept seeing a book on the shelf called 'Poet's Market' and there is a need to think about that, where is this.
The multiple uses of the book as a space to not only offer a narrative or an aesthetic like Crewe but a space for experiment and many poetics functioning at one time. Is the book appropriate for poetics? Is there more we can do? Should it change? Can we define our own poetic or 'a' poetic?
Saarah Crewe, 'flick invicta', Oystercatcher Press
Philip Terry, 'Advanced Immorality', if p then q press
more press free press RESPOND
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)