<p>This is my response to four commentaries from Adriana Clavel-Vázquez, John Gibson, Troy Jollimore and Peter Lamarque on my book <i>Philosophy of Lyric Voice: the cognitive value of page and performance poetry</i>. Here I discuss their criticisms of my account of the lyric in page and performance poetry including the problems of how to connect the embodied performance of poetry with page poetry (Clavel-Vázquez), where to locate expression in the poem and the idea of singing along (Gibson), how poetry is able to express messy and chaotic inner lives through the limitations of language (Jollimore) and finally the relationship between authenticity, embodiment and voice (Lamarque). I am truly grateful to each of the commentators for their thoughtful, generous and insightful comments that have enabled me to deepen and extend my discussion of poetry as perspectival, relational and social and work out some important details that strengthens my account.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Replies to Clavel-Vázquez, Gibson, Jollimore and Lamarque

  • Karen Simecek

摘要

This is my response to four commentaries from Adriana Clavel-Vázquez, John Gibson, Troy Jollimore and Peter Lamarque on my book Philosophy of Lyric Voice: the cognitive value of page and performance poetry. Here I discuss their criticisms of my account of the lyric in page and performance poetry including the problems of how to connect the embodied performance of poetry with page poetry (Clavel-Vázquez), where to locate expression in the poem and the idea of singing along (Gibson), how poetry is able to express messy and chaotic inner lives through the limitations of language (Jollimore) and finally the relationship between authenticity, embodiment and voice (Lamarque). I am truly grateful to each of the commentators for their thoughtful, generous and insightful comments that have enabled me to deepen and extend my discussion of poetry as perspectival, relational and social and work out some important details that strengthens my account.