"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> ..................................................
>
> I recall someone claiming that one can separate the poet from the
> producer of doggerel by a simple question: are the words or the message
> of primary importance. The one who loves the language may produce a poem.
> The one who has to communicate a message will never write poetry, just
> verse.
I can't agree with you here. Consider, e.g., how much of the Bible - &
not just the Psalms - is poetry. Heavily didactic poetry is generally bad
but it is certainly possible to communicate a message without falling into
that trap.
> I believe that Dorothy Sayers, whom David Campbell notes, would
> argue that something similar holds between story and message. Her The
> Mind of the Maker is highly relevant to this point. It seem obvious that,
> whenever an actor comes front and center and harangues the audience, the
> drama has degenerated into propaganda. This may also happen more
> subtilely.
When one of Beckett's killers in "Murder in the Cathedral" comes
front & center & addresses the audience - admittedly it isn't exactly an
"harangue" - it's an intergral part of the action. Among other things it can
jolt members of the audience out of its assurance that they can unambiguously
identify with the good guys vs the bad guys in the play.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 23:16:30 EDT