罗伯特·克里利的开阔田野中的亲密延伸

IF 0.1 4区 文学 0 LITERATURE
CEA CRITIC Pub Date : 2021-09-02 DOI:10.1353/cea.2021.0020
Carly Schnitzler
{"title":"罗伯特·克里利的开阔田野中的亲密延伸","authors":"Carly Schnitzler","doi":"10.1353/cea.2021.0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:On the fifth of June in 1950, Robert Creeley wrote a short letter to \"O,\" his mentor and compatriot poet Charles Olson, one of thousands of notes and letters to be eventually exchanged between them in their co-creation of an open field poetics…. Creeley laments the oversaturation of the term \"form\" with too many definitions—in this case, the conflation of W. H. Auden's \"technical wonder\" with his \"form.\" \"Form,\" Creeley says, \"has now become so useless a term/that I blush to use it.\" What follows is his attempt to remake the term into something useful, though we can still see him blushing in his proposal of multiple definitions: \"To make it clear: that form is never more than an extension of content. An enacted or possible 'stasis' for thought. Means to.\"","PeriodicalId":41558,"journal":{"name":"CEA CRITIC","volume":"83 1","pages":"187 - 194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intimate Extension in Robert Creeley's Open Field\",\"authors\":\"Carly Schnitzler\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/cea.2021.0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:On the fifth of June in 1950, Robert Creeley wrote a short letter to \\\"O,\\\" his mentor and compatriot poet Charles Olson, one of thousands of notes and letters to be eventually exchanged between them in their co-creation of an open field poetics…. Creeley laments the oversaturation of the term \\\"form\\\" with too many definitions—in this case, the conflation of W. H. Auden's \\\"technical wonder\\\" with his \\\"form.\\\" \\\"Form,\\\" Creeley says, \\\"has now become so useless a term/that I blush to use it.\\\" What follows is his attempt to remake the term into something useful, though we can still see him blushing in his proposal of multiple definitions: \\\"To make it clear: that form is never more than an extension of content. An enacted or possible 'stasis' for thought. Means to.\\\"\",\"PeriodicalId\":41558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CEA CRITIC\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"187 - 194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CEA CRITIC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/cea.2021.0020\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CEA CRITIC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cea.2021.0020","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:1950年6月5日,罗伯特·克里利给他的导师和同胞诗人查尔斯·奥尔森写了一封简短的信,这是他们在共同创造一个开放的诗场....中最终交换的数千封笔记和信件之一克里利哀叹“形式”这个词过于饱和,有太多的定义——在这种情况下,把奥登的“技术奇迹”和他的“形式”混为一谈。“形式,”克里利说,“现在已经变成了一个无用的术语/我羞于使用它。”接下来是他试图将这个术语重新塑造成有用的东西,尽管我们仍然可以看到他在提出多重定义时脸红:“要明确的是:形式永远只是内容的延伸。一种为思考而制定的或可能的“停滞”状态。手段。”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intimate Extension in Robert Creeley's Open Field
Abstract:On the fifth of June in 1950, Robert Creeley wrote a short letter to "O," his mentor and compatriot poet Charles Olson, one of thousands of notes and letters to be eventually exchanged between them in their co-creation of an open field poetics…. Creeley laments the oversaturation of the term "form" with too many definitions—in this case, the conflation of W. H. Auden's "technical wonder" with his "form." "Form," Creeley says, "has now become so useless a term/that I blush to use it." What follows is his attempt to remake the term into something useful, though we can still see him blushing in his proposal of multiple definitions: "To make it clear: that form is never more than an extension of content. An enacted or possible 'stasis' for thought. Means to."
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CEA CRITIC
CEA CRITIC LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信