"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:40:30 -0400 george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> writes:
> >
> > "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 fear you are overlooking the "indirection" of poetry, the way in which
> images communicate a message without "telling you what I'm going to tell
> you." Poetry, in a eulogistic sense, is indirect.
There's a big difference between saying that poetry must communicate
a message indirectly & saying that it can't communicate one at all.
Maybe we can debate the point further in Malibu.
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 31 2002 - 14:49:52 EDT