\ .- * - 2r ' * e. ". 9, 5 National Library -). .:. .. ~ibliathequenatiMIgle . .I ) 4 - of Canada , - &Canada P Canadian-Theses Service Service de$ theses camd'iennes , . \I , , a-. 3 >- ? *, I * ). ', _' " r,, * -4 . 5 .'.,-.* - . - d, .. - .p Y, I. , \ 1 " 1 : *: r .% 8. - . - 5 Y 3 I "* , +A ' :. > -4 ; ,I NOTICE ; , ., .. AVIS Fe ) i *- YC.( L 4- - -c -- < L AL * ,I *- .- . - ,.. I,.- I. -1. - ' % * .. * . -, . # * T' *[email protected] microfirmis ~avii~dependentab" the ^.' La qualit4 de cette mi&f6rme grandemfit de la '' afity d tM original thesis swbmtrted for microfilmir@. ' qualit6 de la thbse soumise au microfihge. Nous avons 8eryefbrI has been made to eryrethe highest yality of tout fait pour assurer une qualit6 su@rieure de reproduc- repr-diqn possible. t ion, * If pa e,s are missing, contgcl the univerw which granted Sil ma uer des pages, vdttez &mmuniquer avec - . the Begree'. ,l,'universit"B qi a conf6r4 le grade. * - .Some pages may have indistinct print espekial if the ~a quarid dirnpressiori dB certiine~pages put laisser original pages wecelyped with a poor typewriter rkon or d6sirarl surtout si les pages originales onl4ti dactybgra- ifthe unwersity sent us an inferior ~~y.. phiees A Paide 6un ruban LESB w si tunhlwit6 housqafaa * % p'axeenir une photocopie de qualit6 infdrieute. - .R -ductionin (ull or in pan ifthis microform ispmgd ..La r~oductign,&me par4ieIle. de c& microfo&e est -byT he Canadian Copyright m, R.S.C. 1970, c. -30, and -soumise la Loi canadienne .SUL lebroit ff auteur, SRC subsequent amendments. 1970, c. (2-30, e! seq amendetrnents subs6quents. 4+ - L. L. s , . = -, . 4 , - '7 I. +e qJ - , . r, . a 1 !. 3 .- * 'I ' .o NL-339 (IG~)c National Library , BiMbth&que nationate du Canada' . - , - L? ~ - .Canadian Theses Service Service-des tbscanadimnes rules permit measure and measke, in ;ts role as arbiter of victory. hes. Withoui rpeasure is decadence ' -' .. 'and, as Bowering sbys in "Gentian Coloured ~r&k.".death: "A ruler is a4tick / 4it.h unpleasant - personality. / just past its end is de&. & till then. / authofity." $0 while'rules are the gme'sII Rfelines, '$ . they have an obliq&-never A direct-relatid~hip, tozthatgame. This is due ,to the akt&trct naiure of mles, r which metically treat ofAscenarios- that may never be aftua4ized'-. Y>t ruies, rely for their - . being a& self-justification upon applicable% a.concr;fe =my-rhey '$ktfibinldin%-bMks:+ quantiitive and -.- . - 3 geared for &xtical&. Rules dhethe gamei framing th~Peld by determining dtie game fr6m another. - , _- Bw the; alsdadeterdne, kithin. ihd game.& ond duct. r"V2 bkkpr&ide, both the ixtehal arid &tern1 -.- - .- , '' skeleton of 'the game: as mugins, aare'bth &*en&mal &nd' internal limik io a body of writing. 3. + I> However,. ure pprninendy wly when me &ts out 'at its margins.- The contefitibusihess of a. ./1 , I m& , .- : g?me--~r m~bfingrthe margin$ into. play. _meaiuri~ fair or f&;; ke qu6mlous & ' highlights its own rules. !n rhe writing df~eokeBdwering the mar$ins.&e w&e the play is, all the tinre:- - 1 6. S, Bltqing borders between ge&es. ctx;Pownding identity-Z and. sub;erdng referepe are Favmte tricks of his - which Gake the reader keenly aware* . df&&ns. <I lines+, ahd &t pplayjng by the Ntes &wering plays , , %.. , ihe p~les,and thb 6 the measure@ his game, A : w3 a;;:: , -, . b v. -,- ~hou~h'therelationship berwqeg t6e, mles1 aid the &me is oblique, some wifne of rhis gami's ides is - . , p "\ mli' Lit. However. a cdnc1usi~~'exegesis'of cer~nof&& writing, illuminating this writing with ' . - cleq light of irrefutabk eiplanahon woul& be an inapptopriate pitch to malie given'the depli&tous , ' ' 3 - + self-questioning evident in hwekhg9gwri&. Tire f&m of a reply, rathe$ &an a replay.*characterites I< . % a -' this cwcal engagement of hie writing and @face not of J!bweyix&s tea but of the critic seeing that tebt j . - - " is in evidence,. What Light there is is dif'f&&, creating an opaque text &r,ough which Bowerihg's writing z -, >I can be seen: Seen obliquely, equiwcdly. yet nevertheless seen tobe integrally informing the game. which , W. - 3 irseif is measure. T . ". < I %.. 7 % - " i / v 9 iii Y -- - a L L$< a . - ., L , -*- : + .-L b ,, .$ 41 - 6' . 1 ,a .--" r '*4,- - t = < - L-ra .I I -@ - - , * - Fiast. Pitch . - . I. * 1 , i #I examining the work of a wiiter it seem ' a1 for a &tic td wrnp~i:(whatshe views as) t T discrete portions of ihit work. This procedure re= the body of'rork bi &tione& ihe inhgng . that it had is fragmented bp the critic+ eye in the act of abalysis. such analy-sis is used by critics to .. a. distinguish @are, temporal iharge,,snbject matter and whatever may seem pertinent to their theses. But - - , *.. '. *. such analysis isa critical imp~siti$.-d~o,addressing the corpus of a writer cloaks jt in the langi(age.of the. % U 4 - critic whose ~iva;aake-%~la is thereby revealed. Faced with a bodyof wor!c,:~'nitiereveak her bition vis . - bL.. I / in h vis&ai york thi ia of criticismby which she; herself,-definer herself, ., ~ut'the*. aq of criticism is dot a; - " % . hirrb< Tor the nik; it is nor narcissistic ar static; on Jhe mntrary; it i* d&. - Criticism &ys at-, - . - :' OF rekfrni2 g the work, cgnstantly, as the pTocess being addressed by different tritics creates infinite . , permutations of thqwork, each relm&lg it through whatever conceptual ma& the &tic views it ' , +..- -. " f One hesitates40 do violepee ta a text'by misrepresenting it in rhe acrqof criticisin. Thedleast . % - b. possible disfigurement however, would seem €Q be in reproducing the text exactly and -that is to make , .: Vi i, mockery of criticism Then some partial portionidg'must tte made. but the*work60f GB in p&tichar-poses diffcultiff for the critic. This oeuvre insists upon its own integrity by blurring such margins as clitia~are' . i fond of. 'me, "poetry" and Spm" labels hav; both been used to define ~utobioloq,the genegc indiscretiog of which refuses the dothingW such labe7 9. - Even "criticism" itself disfigures the text of A . Way with Words, the playful, sonorous &id polemid writing of which confounds descn&ion. 'hi terms of authorship "the dirk of GB* is itself a misnomer, %at work's tonipositor~the GB-comprising E. E. Freengrask? Ed Pram. Erich kadchead. Harry Brimon &I ers we may never . know about With the recognition that discrirninatidg within GBrs work is curio -A this is nonetheless the sensible course to take, however caP~ious;k foundation hybe. wifi therefoie ..a create distinctions. Using separately-published books as the units of comparison 1 will differentiate between those books which hkto the physic& terct'for their meaning and thase which Lo& elsewhere. ~hus-di$&uishing certain appendages of the work% body from others is the enabling act of criticism; by ' seeing difference and imping the language that reifies it grafting is possible: a shaping by the critic of a / newwy, wods dressed.' So the work of .GB, whose subject in Allovhanes remarks, "I underwent the operation of language," here is made subject to this critical operation of lan%&e. , Creating distinctions is done by approachi& the corpus wiQ criterion; the:critic engages in sorting the kxt by means of i@ ciose-o<di$ant adherence to this criterion. Hence the body of work is '. ' aligeed according to an axis. Wbie two such, criteria-and usually criticism has criteria which make it mure than one-dimensional-interact with the carpus the critic has brought a concepml mat~ixto bate Z (on) the text ' - 7- * \ .L I '> A I, - - *. - 3 ", I * * < ' - *? -. I ' I 7 > . * - V v# .- - b ., Th6 matrix whereby the critic add~sse'kritin? is si&ar- & .the idd Uiat-iGsVaites 6~s*a -I. , " pdetic theory. Evident. concern with graphic presentatioi has always chhciact&i;ed-z? his writing-witness &e . .f tide of his M.A.thesis--"~&s od the OridW-&a [he, titleof the Wk of &&I< @reduced subsequent to i. the thesis In GB's thesis, the a& whose grid becomes the gmund wherein the porm figures-. are an axis P of &ive&lity and one bf particularity. -Their relationship makes rhe site ifthe poem a dynamic space or * I. , , eyrgy field whk3 yet does not eradicate the fixity created by the address of a point on a grid. Dynamism -- is created b< thh au~obiographicsituation of the poet himself. inscribing the material he derives from observing life-mtion~ and reactipns-he creates an &xisof puticukarity which is the range of his ' perso@ response.' ~h&.mnjdined with an axis of iniversality containing bmmon experiences ihe -, % . ' 3. r situation of the is Rxed, thou@-. Flee&: this is loclls, This Locus is individual, d$fida frqn thai -, '. ' - : - bf any other argdnism,(I yet the ax$ of unire~iitysib& as contained Iwithin the world; conceiving of him _ , . the%orld as'& indivisible totality means thatall aie.inteneht& and affect each other. nese axes : ' - - d. *, form a ,&id that is imaged. by GB, as the-bonlergence of "the line +at runs ;hraugh his partkularity as an observer, across die line that runs through his cons@ousn&s of himself as p@ of a world nature orgi@m* oink on the Grid." MA thesis, UBC. 5). Of special note'bere is the si x; dthg of the grid within the a I I . i mind of the poet, The poem is the scene *ere' this mental grid is imaged That is, fkelpoern imitates a mental phenomen~n. The poem is dissimilarpdhe inen$ stimulus-neceqrily, so. being composed of different materials-so an imitation. in anoth,er medium, is what-the poet accomplishes in projecring a -perceived point of intersection into a poem.