[New-Poetry] cummings haters

[Chris Lott]

It depends on how you are defining grammar. Cummings definitely had
(and created) rules, but he also wrote things that were
"ungrammatical" if by grammar we mean conventions accepted when
writing things other than poems in typical English classrooms.
Further, to try to wedge his changes into conventional grammar robs
the work of a lot of its power.

I actually don't disagree with you at all. To simply say "cummings was
ungrammatical" doesn't recognize the depth of his skill... but it's
just as misleading to insist that he was "entirely grammatical" as if
he were following conventional grammar in the way people are likely to
understand that description. It is, after all, what sets him apart
from many other contemporaries. No one here was using the description
as a pejorative.

c


On 12/28/06, Joseph Duemer <duemer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you people read Cummings? He is entirely grammatical. He makes
> interesting, intentional substitutions of one part of speech for another,
> but none of his work would makes sense without readers' innate understanding
> of grammar. To say that Cummings is ungrammatical is to misunderstand both
> Cummings & grammar. Cummings, buy the way, was steeped in the traditions of
> Anglo-American poetry & in particular the very exacting tradition of the
> sonnet. To read Cummings without knowing this is to completely miss what he
> is about. I defy anyone to post a single sentence from Cummings that is not
> grammatical.
>
>
> On 12/28/06, Suzanne Baran <screwzbaran at gmail.com> wrote:
> > WELL SAID!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/28/06, Alexander Dickow < alexdickow9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Lo,
> > > "In less, of course, you meant"
> > > I see you are an expert in perfect grammar.
> > > I find your remarks about Cummings sort of
> > > presumptuous, since I think what he did opened up many
> > > possibilities that have yet to be exhausted. Although
> > > not a rabid fan of Cummings, I find the alternative
> > > position -- "you should respect grammar" to be rather
> > > repulsive for all kinds of reasons, at least insofar
> > > as it becomes a "position". _Write your English good_
> > > if you want, but don't discourage others from building
> > > their _style_ in whatever sense they wish.
> > > What's certainly most vexing to me -- perhaps I'm
> > > alone on this -- is your rather tactless remarks to
> > > Raven, which look like flaming to me. Others here have
> > > succeeded in offering criticism in a both
> > > uncompromising and much more kind fashion, Lo.
> > > Keep reading, keep writing, Raven.
> > > Amicalement,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > www.alexdickow.net/blog/
> > >
> > >   les mots! ah quel désert à la fin
> > >   merveilleux. -- Henri Droguet
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > New-Poetry mailing list
> > > New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> > > http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "The reader, the thinker, the flaneur, are types of illuminati just as
> much as the opium eater, the dreamer, the ecstatic. … Not to mention that
> most terrible drug - ourselves - which we take in solitude."  - Walter
> Benjamin
> > _______________________________________________
> > New-Poetry mailing list
> > New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> > http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Duemer
> Professor of Humanities
> Clarkson University
> [sharpsand.net]
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>
>
>


-- 
Chris Lott