The Writing Experiment by Hazel Smith

be equivalent to the next one. Words that do not seem to belong to each
other are nevertheless grouped together, as, for example, in the sentence
‘Blow-fly objectify the expression’. Important here is the lack of hierarchy
in the sentence which does not have a clear object or subject, or subordi-
nate one idea to another.
What is to be gained by writing like this? For a start, such an approach
defamiliarises grammar. It focuses our attention on how language normally
works, and how it can be stretched. And although it may seem that such a
piece is very ‘difficult’ and obscures meaning, in fact it liberates it. For
example, the sentence ‘How do you geometry light and dew’ is a very expres-
sive way of talking about the perception of physical relationships and shapes
in nature. Writing like this produces semantic flexibility: each sentence can
be interpreted in several ways, producing more meaning rather than less.
Such a passage also makes us think about the limits of language and the fact
that conventional language cannot express the inexpressible. There are many
things which are difficult to say within grammatical language structures.
This is a very extreme instance of grammatical subversion; however,
much experimental poetry does not go this far, but rather takes some
licence with grammar. Many poets flatten out the sentence, minimising
grammatical pointers and connectives. The following poem, ‘Make-Up’ by
Geraldine Monk, is a good example of that:

Example 8.13

ran cranberry over logan

Japanese ginger orchid

spice glow mandarines

frost light clearly

stacked moonsmoke robe on aubergine

snow

peppered sweet on two metallic

lupins

frost laid oon aub mois. Tang rang

ruby

apple

mixed snow fizz pink shantung

laid ginger rum on maple

got fizz tung rum ba plum

or was it victoria

‘Make-Up’ (Monk 1988, p. 318)

Postmodern poetry, avant-garde poetics 177