07-05-2023, 07:20 AM
Kynaston started an interesting discussion on when and where to link vs explain in the title directly
To this, Tiger wrote:
This might be an interesting topic for the discussion forum. Spoilers, Links, Footnotes etc. I've found they can be a simple credit where it's due, and other times a roundabout way of adding an explanation or context to poem that is not found in the text proper.. I think, as KL said, it can be both at the same time. I've had poems questioned for gathering context from outside the text. Always been curious about everyone's thoughts.
Take Eliot's poetry, which is always full of footnotes.
Allusions upon allusions, allusions upon allusions.
At least in Eliot's time, English poetry was read by the upper classes who had the same Oxbridge education and a common cultural lexicon.
The old Oxonians had the Classics, Dante, and the Bible. And some, like Eliot, a bit more. So a lot of allusions were inside references, sometimes inside jokes. Dang, even Asterix, which in the English translation of one of the comics, had Brutus angrily suggesting 'brute force' (et tu?)
Today, we partake of culture more widely. Not just Cavafy, who was known to the erudite English speaker even back in the day, but also Amos Tutuola, Chinua Achebe, hillbilly music, blues, all the way, to quote John Cleese, Venezuelan beaver cheese. How much does the writer assume the reader knows?
Mercedes, as a Kiwi, threw in a lot of Maori words in her poetry and you could make out what they meant from the context....most of the time.
But allusions work only when the reader and the writer are on the same page. Otherwise, it's like the guy in Dilbert complaining about his co workers who don't know the capital of Elbonia.
So where to footnote, and where to explain?
My view - allusions that the reader is not familiar with will probably not work. But that's okay. As long as there is a reasonable number of people in the world for whom the allusion works, it's okay for it to be there in a poem, morally speaking. And I prefer footnotes, as they're less in your face.
Thoughts?
To this, Tiger wrote:
This might be an interesting topic for the discussion forum. Spoilers, Links, Footnotes etc. I've found they can be a simple credit where it's due, and other times a roundabout way of adding an explanation or context to poem that is not found in the text proper.. I think, as KL said, it can be both at the same time. I've had poems questioned for gathering context from outside the text. Always been curious about everyone's thoughts.
Take Eliot's poetry, which is always full of footnotes.
Allusions upon allusions, allusions upon allusions.
At least in Eliot's time, English poetry was read by the upper classes who had the same Oxbridge education and a common cultural lexicon.
The old Oxonians had the Classics, Dante, and the Bible. And some, like Eliot, a bit more. So a lot of allusions were inside references, sometimes inside jokes. Dang, even Asterix, which in the English translation of one of the comics, had Brutus angrily suggesting 'brute force' (et tu?)
Today, we partake of culture more widely. Not just Cavafy, who was known to the erudite English speaker even back in the day, but also Amos Tutuola, Chinua Achebe, hillbilly music, blues, all the way, to quote John Cleese, Venezuelan beaver cheese. How much does the writer assume the reader knows?
Mercedes, as a Kiwi, threw in a lot of Maori words in her poetry and you could make out what they meant from the context....most of the time.
But allusions work only when the reader and the writer are on the same page. Otherwise, it's like the guy in Dilbert complaining about his co workers who don't know the capital of Elbonia.
So where to footnote, and where to explain?
My view - allusions that the reader is not familiar with will probably not work. But that's okay. As long as there is a reasonable number of people in the world for whom the allusion works, it's okay for it to be there in a poem, morally speaking. And I prefer footnotes, as they're less in your face.
Thoughts?