Re: Inverted Forests
Mattis Fishman (mattis@argos.argoscomp.com)
Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:53:28 -0400
Hello again,
Thank you, Will, for your thoughtful reply regarding Seymour and Ray Ford.
You really make me realize how difficult it is to use words and phrases like
"holiness" and "good poetry" without having them assume our own personal
meanings.
Regarding the poet as holy man:
I see your point that we may see every poet, alcoholic, degenerate or not,
as holy, but then we may (should?) view everything as holy, and so the
word loses its usefulness. Let me use, instead, the concept of "spiritual
advancement", an attribute which people may have in differing degrees
(at least according to my reading of Seymour and Teddy).
Similarly, what is good poetry? I imagine that one or two books have
been written on the subject, but not having read them ("I know what I like
when I see it!" <grin>) I guess I will go by the prejudices I have
acquired from frequent rereadings of SAI. Among other qualities, the Poet has
the vision to recognize the essential (a Chinese poet knows a good ... what
was it, a crab? ... when he sees one). The poet is the master of his eyes.
There will always be the beloved Wordsworths, masters of art, craft, and
emotion, the Wallace Stevens and their esthetics, and T.S. Eliots in their
wastelands. Remember that Seymour considered our favorite dead Austrian
to have been the only poet of the century.
So to rephrase my question, can we infer from Seymour that to be a great
poet, to see the essential nature of things, one must have some degree of
spiritual advancement? If so, then Ray Ford, who let's postualate shows
no great signs of spiritual advancement, must have faulty vision.
This is what I meant when I alluded to Esme and the watch, he was not
able to see the redeeming holiness which Seymour saw everywhere.
So long until Monday.
All the best,
Mattis