[Tom Jardine]

Originally posted by Tim Murphy:
.... Tom ....is saying ... that the matter, not the style, are indubitably Murphy's. However, I'd like to think that the method of the writing is also distinctive, that whether I am writing about Pope John Paul II or Feeney, there is a way that I work my sentences through the easy confines of rhymed pentameter that "sounds" like me. Clive once forcefully argued this at Deep End, and I hope he's right.

Tim,

I did not say that. I said, "This is what I mean by identifiable style. Tim Murphy has accomplished this elusive feat. Had I put one of these stanzas in the four on my recent thread on general, people would have picked up on it immediately. So I agree with Clive.

Your style is not prose-dependant, and has a patiste method of approaching subject, and is not dependant on props, as I call them. Think Matisse, for an artist analogy, where the image (and the voice) is always discernable and presented rather than captured or 'talked-out.'

TJ

[Janet Kenny]

Tim:
What Janet and Tom are saying is that the matter, not the style, are indubitably Murphy's. However, I'd like to think that the method of the writing is also distinctive, that whether I am writing about Pope John Paul II or Feeney, there is a way that I work my sentences through the easy confines of rhymed pentameter that "sounds" like me. Clive once forcefully argued this at Deep End, and I hope he's right.

Tim,
I thought that was too obvious to be worth mentioning but I mention it now.
I have always remarked on the inimitably dense diction of your poems. I tried to fake one once but couldn't.
I think Tom's comparison with the paintings of Matisse is wrong--apart from the element of certainty. I'd say if a visual comparison were possible --and I don't think it is--the sculptor Brancusi would be more apt and perhaps the painter Fernand Leger.
The sonnet form is less typical of your work. Shorter meters usually facilitate your most intense writing.
Janet

[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited July 04, 2005).]

[Mark Allinson]

Janet, that is so true.

Of all the sonnets posted here, this one (even disregarding clues from content) is the only one which speaks in a voice I recognise immediately.

What an accomplishment, to achieve a voice!

And how is it done?

No one knows. It certainly can't be taught. All the courses and all the workshops and writing degrees in Christendom will not deliver it. It is truly "a gift" from above, and we are all grateful to hear its distinctive style when it speaks.

Treasure your gift, Tim.

We do.



------------------
Mark Allinson

[Tim Murphy]

Very sweet of you to say so, Mark, but Greg Williamson had an absolutely sui generis, distinctive voice, when he was only in his twenties. "Fire" could have been written by nobody but Greg.

[Mark Allinson]

Tim,

when I say a distinctive voice is an accomplishment, it doesn't always follow that that accomplishment takes a long time to appear. Mostly it is an accomplishment of the muse, anyway. But some seem to almost leap from the cradle with a unique style, and I am sure you are right about Greg. You can hear the voice of Keats, for instance, even in his "Imitation of Spenser", written when barely nineteen.

Some take a lot longer to achieve a voice, in full throat, but I suspect that voice was already audible in early work. Sometimes the great achievement is to clarify that voice with age. The process of ageing seems to reduce capacity in all areas, except perhaps the poetic voice. The great Greek dramatists proved this principle long ago, not to mention recent famous examples. The unique voice clarifying. Muffling of a given voice has also been widely noted. Thus the need to serve (and conserve) the voice.



------------------
Mark Allinson