Re: Rilke 23, 1999
Cecilia A. Baader (cbaader@my-Deja.com)
Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:15:39 -0700
---
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:43:47 citycabn wrote:
>Upon re-reading, all of the last paragraph is horribly simplified and
>almost repugnant.
That's because it's so important to you, right? I loved your post on Rilke. But though I was fascinated by several of the things that you pointed out in your post, it is the last sentence that caught me. For I can't tell you how many times I've felt that something was so important that I couldn't possibly write about it with any degree of truth.
It reminded me of S:AI, how Buddy knew that he was making a hash of his description of Seymour, but was compelled to write it anyway.
Your post gave me the same kind of feeling. For how could one possibly, in any language, explain Rilke's angels? No better than Buddy could explain S.'s poems. The diplomat who regretfully steps on the discarded drawing in a garden with a red lotus.
So in answer to your question, yes. Yes I love the letters, yes I love the Duino Elegies, yes I love the Sonnets to Orpheus. I especially love [You Who Never Arrived], though. Better than any poem that I've ever known, it gets across that feeling of the one who never came. The one that I had to do without, but whose presence I've always sensed, though it was missing.
Bliss, truly.
Regards,
Cecilia.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.