[轉錄]Re: [轉錄] 林婉瑜《部分與全部》

[dale (冰城城主)]

※ [本文轉錄自 dale 信箱]

作者: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
標題: Re: [轉錄] 林婉瑜《部分與全部》
時間: Sun Oct  2 21:25:53 2005

作者: dale (冰城城主) 站內: dale
標題: Re: [轉錄] 林婉瑜《部分與全部》
時間: Tue Sep 27 15:35:44 2005

※ 引述《dale (冰城城主)》之銘言：
:     有時，閱讀一些年輕的稿件，讀畢後總覺得自己必須去說服作者
: 兩件事：一是詩和其他文類一樣在必要時才使用形容詞；二是情緒需
: 要轉化或拓展意義才有被閱讀價值。
        這幾天一直在想──Pound 有說過類似的話！
        然而，基於時間壓縮、記憶力太糟等理由，翻爛了了 "ABC of Reading"
        也找不到（我還是覺得應該會有：符合他愛說教的個性）。

        沒想到剛剛在圖書館偷懶一下卻找到了！:D

        以下是 Ezra Pound 寫給 Harriet Monroe 的信。



        Coleman's Hatch, January 1915

        Dear H. M.: -- Poetry must be as well written as prose.  Its
        language must be a fine language, departing in no way from speech
        save by a heightened intensity (i.e. simplicity).  There must be
        no book words, no periphrases, no inversions.  It must be as
        simple as De Maupassant's best prose, and as hard as Stendhal's.

        There must be no interjections.  No words flying off to nothing.
        Granted one can't get perfection every shot, this must be one's
        INTENTION.

        Rhythm MUST have meaning.  It can't be merely a careless dash
        off, with no grip and no real hold to the words and sense, a
        tumty tum tumty tum tum ta.

        There must be no clich'es, set phrases, stereotyped journalese.
        The only escape from such is by precision, a result of
        concentrated attention to what one is writing.  The test of a
        writer is his ability for such concentration AND for his power to
        stay concentrated till he gets to the end of his poem, whether it
        is two lines or two hundred.

        Objectivity and again objectivity, and expression: no
        hindside-beforeness, no straddled adjectives (as "addled mosses
        dank"), no Tennysonianness of speech; nothing -- nothing that you
        couldn't, in some circumstance, in the stress of some emotion,
        actually say.  Every literaryism, every book word, fritters away
        a scrap of the reader's patience, a scrap of his sense of your
        sincerity.  When one really feels and thinks, one stammers with
        simple speech; it is only in the flurry, the shallow frothy
        excitement of writing, or the inebriety of a metre, that one
        falls into the easy -- oh, how easy! -- speech of books and poems
        that one has read.

        Language is made out of concrete things.  General expressions in
        non-concrete terms as a laziness; they are talk, not art, not
        creation.  They are the reaction of things on the writer, not a
        creative act _by_ the writer.

        "Epithets" are usually abstractions -- I mean what they call
        "epithets" in the books about poetry.  The only adjective that is
        worth using is the adjective that is essential to the sense of
        the passage, not the decorative frill adjective.

        Aldington has his occasional concentrations, and for that reason
        it is always possible that he will do a fine thing.  There is a
        superficial cleverness in him, then a great and lamentable gap,
        then the hard point the true centre, out of which a fine thing
        may come at any time.

        Fletcher is sputter, bright flash, sputter.  Impressionist
        temperament, made intense at half-seconds.

        H. D. and William C. Williams both better emotional equipment
        than Aldington, but lacking the superficial cleverness.  Ought to
        produce really fine things at great intervals.

        Eliot is intelligent, very, but I don't know him well enough to
        make predictions.

        Masters hits rock bottom now and again.  He should comb the
        journalese out of his poems.  I wish Lindsay all possible luck
        but we're not really pulling the same way, though we both pull
        against entrenched senility.  --

        Sandburg may come out all right, but he needs to learn a _lot_
        about _How to Write._  I believe his intention is right.

        Would to God I could see a bit more Sophoclean severity in the
        ambitions of mes amis et confr`eres.  The general weakness of the
        writers of the new school is looseness, lack of rhythmical
        construction and intensity; secondly, an attempt to "apply
        decoration", to use what ought to be a vortex as a sort of
        bill-poster, or fence-wash.  Hinc illae lachrymae.  Too bad about
        Amy -- why can't she conceive of herself as a Renaissance figure
        instead of a spiritual chief, which she ain't.

        Ebbene -- enough of this.



        結論：
        ‧Pound 的筆，很機車！XD
        ‧計中鍵盤真他喵的難打，軟趴趴的沒骨氣。
        ‧上個世紀的批判，到現在還是很受用。
        ‧其實我是回計中查 paper 的……Orz|||

--
╭──────────────────╮╭────────────╮╭─╮
│  世界正崩毀離析，時間正傾倒頹壞。  ├┴╮http://distract.org/╭┴┤  │
╰─┬────────────────╯  ├──────────┤  ╰┬╯
    ╰──────────────────╯                    ╰──╯

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢兔(ptt2.cc)
◆ From: 140.112.7.59
→ candb:推啊>///<　可借我轉嗎??
※ candb:轉錄至看板 Room2012                                       09/28 00:56
→ skyhawk:當然可以呀，抱歉沒看到推文。^^|||
→ candb::p

--
╭──────────────────╮╭────────────╮╭─╮
│  世界正崩毀離析，時間正傾倒頹壞。  ├┴╮http://distract.org/╭┴┤  │
╰─┬────────────────╯  ├──────────┤  ╰┬╯
    ╰──────────────────╯                    ╰──╯

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 218.166.77.147