George,
Exactly what was tasteful about
the poem "Instrumental" posted earlier?
Also why are disparate objectors to Plath's
status being herded together as 'the tasteless'
or 'creepy crowd mentality' as if you could ascribe
conformity to a packet of poets?
best
Hugh Tolhurst
----- Original Message -----
From: George Simmers <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: I saw something nasty in the bell jar
>
> Jon Corelis wrote:
>
> > On one occasion I played the Plath's recording of Daddy to a woman of
> my
> > acquaintance who had never read it. As soon as it was over she
> > remarked, "What a nasty poem!"
>
> But of course. The main reason Plath is worth reading is that, as a real
> poet, she lacked taste. A lesser poet would have shared your sensitive
> friend's reaction, would have repressed the urge to write in tasteless
> unladylike, abnormal ways. Plath had the courage and integrity to write as
> she knew the world was, and damn tastefulness.
>
> Isn't there always a "Wound and the Bow" dimension to great poets? I think
> of Eliot, with the intellectual/moral courage to write the world as he
felt
> it, not just stay inside the limitations of nice polite Georgian prosody.
> The cost of this was that part of what he expressed was his nasty
> anti-Semitism.
>
> It's not the job of the poet to be tasteful or comfy. It's the job of a
poet
> to write and be damned. And there will always, as this Plath thread shows,
> be a long queue of tasteful people ready to do the damning.
>
> George
> ______________________________________________
> George Simmers
> Snakeskin Poetry Webzine is at
> http://www.snakeskin.org.uk
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|