I had more than a passing fascination with the re
markable
mind bending acts of linguistic
ɯsıuoıʇɹoʇuoɔ that were the hallmarks
of E.E. Cummings.
While Mr. Ebert's thoughts have ceased to be relevant to me, I was pleasantly surprised to find him an aficionado of Mr. Cummings' work. His thoughtful defense of the "troublesome" poem in question was marred only by the repetition of the assertion that poems are not supposed to have meaning; they are simply supposed to exist.
Hogwash.
Regardless, I find that I share an enthusiasm with Mr. Ebert. And perhaps it is better to focus more on that which we share in common with one another than to focus on our disagreements.
At least from time
to
t
i
m
e.
[link to the essay updated 1/10/2022]
2 comments:
But Ebert repeated that assertion - that poems don't need meaning - contemptuously. Like he's repeatedly encountered the condescending artistes who say it and meant to nip it before it starts.
fliptext dot net?? Oh, awesome.
I agree with that, Ruth. Thus the "Hogwash".
(sigh)
My woeful lack of clarity is once again apparent!! LOL
fliptext - the word "contortionism" inspired me! I'm glad I found it.
Post a Comment