Comments on: Say no to yourself.

By: eli

eli — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:42:37 +0000

OK. I wish there was a “Wednesday version” somewhere, But I’m afraid there isn’t.

So I will have to step back from this text hole, I mean, whole text, and turn to other Hugos.

Until I find you, I mean, it, I will cheer myself up with a variety of poems that do exist in versions I can agree to. The others – for me – are nothing. Meaning “nothing” as in “Being and Nothingness” – too much facticity for my taste.

By: shigekuni

shigekuni — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:19:40 +0000

to break it down in simpler terms: this text is one coherent whole. with a different first line, it would be a different text. the trajectory of images and references would be utterly different with a “Wednesday” instead of “Sunday”. If your reading of the poem would work with a different first line, you are misreading the poem. Simple as.

By: shigekuni

shigekuni — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:12:02 +0000

It is only ‘shit’ to you because you misread the poem as a whole. You misread it not because you read it ‘wongöy’ but because you ignored part of the text. The text is the only thing that counts, and a misreading is one that ignores significant parts of it. By subtracting the religious subtext from the poem, you robbed it of an essential aspect, an aspect that the first line introduces perfectly, with all its ambiguities and personal facets.

By: eli

eli — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:07:14 +0000

Because the first line is shit? *ROFL*

By: shigekuni

shigekuni — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:05:46 +0000

again, you’re missing the point. One poem is enough. This poem, above, is the one I have. i’m happy with it. Why would I need more versions?

By: eli

eli — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:02:20 +0000

*lol* I guess, if I was you I’d go for a critical edition with all readings and commentaries in íts critical apparatus. Let there be verse! Go(o)d luck!

By: shigekuni

shigekuni — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:58:33 +0000

you are missing the whole point.

this version exists. yes? I took it from a book on my shelf. Yes? This version exists. Fact. Now, were the author still alive he could write A DIFFERENT version, yes, but it would not supplant the existing one, it would be A DIFFERENT version, a different poem, even. You cannot ‘undo’ this poem. It’s there.
With Lowell’s work, sometimes I have three, four versions of the same poem, depending on when and where he has printed it. Especially the notebook poems, which appeared in three different books, often went through multiple changes, some small, some large. Generally, I like the first and last versions most, I think he was not up to his game when he wrote the middle versions.
These are different poems, none more ‘true’ or ‘correct’ than the other. Some I like more, some I like less. But they all exist.

This poem exists as it is. Full stop.

By: eli

eli — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:32:10 +0000

You’re right. Most second versions are worse. But you’re also wrong.

Because the determination of a “second version” is arbitrary. What if the first version was an empty state, sort of inbetween versions, one of those work versions you told me about? (How ever they are managed.)

This could justify a correction of line one any time, if the author agreed, and there would not be a first and – a fortiori – no last version ever.

And on the other hand, even if there were last, first or otherwise fixed versions, you could never prove that, had you read the second version as a first, you’d not liked it better. ‘Cause what we get used to is just about carved in stone, and as for the order of versions, a circle has no beginning.

By: shigekuni

shigekuni — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:29:29 +0000

ah, but the poem is as it is, whether by accident or not. He cannot change the poem, he can only write a second version, which would not be “truer” than the present one. Is the second version of Der Grüne Heinrich better or more correct than the first one? It’s not. Actually, it’s worse.

By: eli

eli — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:49:55 +0000

but if he’d got there on a wednesday instead of a sunday we would not be having this discussion. he allusively hinted on that him being accidentally there that day.

so and if he only used that sunday to begin with because he got there on a sunday i’d really love to talk to him about that. maybe he wouldn’t want you to interpret it they way you do, and he would even change the first line.

i know i would.