Thank you for giving me the benefit that I failed to give you.
Part of what poetry tries to do is capture experience. It does this with language. The more concrete the language the better. A perhaps unwarranted value judgement but... I stand by it... I think that contemporary poetry still does this. I really must disagree with you if you see otherwise. We may be talking at cross-purposes here.
Of course you use the word "transcendent". And "romantic". These words Lerner studiously avoids but, as you've noted, this is his thesis. I think that this central argument/position holds though. Without using poncey language -- "Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all." -- Lerner is stating that the (primary?) aim of poetry is to put into words that which cannot be put into words. That is why to be silent is to succeed. Notice that a similar idea runs through philosophy. Apparently Wittgenstein was happiest when a student _gave up_ philosophy. Also, isn't this the same chap who said, "the limits of my language […] mean the limits of my world"? Same with the Joycean epiphany. Poetry (and poetic prose) really sings, really lifts off, when it gets us to connect in whatever way with what the words are pointing towards. But all the words can do is point! They can never be a substitute for the thing-in-itself, how can they be! Other forms of writing don't have this aim because they don't have the concision that poetry strives for. By definition almost they don't have the concision. Do you not agree?
Regarding form. I had not come across this, "Form is liberating." I agree 100%. And, I will steal it. The thing is: poetry had not even properly begun to explore the combinatorial space of forms. (Including formlessness.) What has happened is an enlarging of the space (of forms). This is why Lerner points out the irony of those who push against becoming in time part of that which they push against. I am not criticising form. I embrace and celebrate the bigger house. My nature means that I do privilege the new and that is a failing of mine. I do not reject the old, do not misunderstand me here.
Besides, I felt the piece was really well written. Written with a poet's ear.
[hashing this out over a bevvy would be most agreeable :)]
Thank you for giving me the benefit that I failed to give you.
Part of what poetry tries to do is capture experience. It does this with language. The more concrete the language the better. A perhaps unwarranted value judgement but... I stand by it... I think that contemporary poetry still does this. I really must disagree with you if you see otherwise. We may be talking at cross-purposes here.
Of course you use the word "transcendent". And "romantic". These words Lerner studiously avoids but, as you've noted, this is his thesis. I think that this central argument/position holds though. Without using poncey language -- "Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all." -- Lerner is stating that the (primary?) aim of poetry is to put into words that which cannot be put into words. That is why to be silent is to succeed. Notice that a similar idea runs through philosophy. Apparently Wittgenstein was happiest when a student _gave up_ philosophy. Also, isn't this the same chap who said, "the limits of my language […] mean the limits of my world"? Same with the Joycean epiphany. Poetry (and poetic prose) really sings, really lifts off, when it gets us to connect in whatever way with what the words are pointing towards. But all the words can do is point! They can never be a substitute for the thing-in-itself, how can they be! Other forms of writing don't have this aim because they don't have the concision that poetry strives for. By definition almost they don't have the concision. Do you not agree?
Regarding form. I had not come across this, "Form is liberating." I agree 100%. And, I will steal it. The thing is: poetry had not even properly begun to explore the combinatorial space of forms. (Including formlessness.) What has happened is an enlarging of the space (of forms). This is why Lerner points out the irony of those who push against becoming in time part of that which they push against. I am not criticising form. I embrace and celebrate the bigger house. My nature means that I do privilege the new and that is a failing of mine. I do not reject the old, do not misunderstand me here.
Besides, I felt the piece was really well written. Written with a poet's ear.
[hashing this out over a bevvy would be most agreeable :)]