having just read Alison Croggon's review of Lauren Williams' Invisible
Tattoos - I would add to my previous email that Alison does state exactly
what defines poetry worthy of positive criticism for her: "Poems matter to
me because of their beauty, intelligence, passion, vitality, excitement"
etc.
With regards my comments, 'Better we realised and acknowledged that
reviewers have their own ideas about what defines a 'good' poem or what
poetry should do, and these may not be the same as the poet who wrote the
collection under review': by explicitly stating what her critical framework
is Alison leaves little to the reader to imply about her position - a much
needed aspect of poetry reviewing in oz.
regards
deb
----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Comerford <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: The Festival
> Hi Hugh & Alison & poetryetceteras,
>
> With regards the discussion about Alison's review of Lauren William's
> poetry - perhaps we can see different 'schools' or 'camps' of poetry
working
> here (to contradict my previous thoughts on no camps in oz)???
>
> I haven't read the review Hugh is referring to - but I couldn't think of
two
> more different forms of poetry than Lauren Williams' & Alison Croggons'.
> While these differences do not necessarily have to be perceived as
'camps',
> when a poet from one field reviews a poet from a different field, in a
> negative way, the establishment of 'camps' can begin to take shape.
>
> If we were to have a critical language with which to discuss these
different
> approaches to poetry then perhaps there would be less confusion and
> frustration. Of course, the problem is - how to utilise a critical
language
> which does not reify these differences into 'camps'.
>
> I would not be surprised to read a negative review of Lauren Williams'
work
> by Alison. Nor would I be surprised if the reverse were to occur - in
many
> ways a review often says more about what the reviewer/poet desires than
what
> the poetry under review does. Ah, we are such subjective beings and
> objective reviewing processes are a fallacy. Better we realised and
> acknowledged that reviewers have their own ideas about what defines a
'good'
> poem or what poetry should do, and these may not be the same as the poet
who
> wrote the collection under review.
>
> regards
> deb
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|