Thanks for posting the review Alison.

I thought I'd share some of my responses to it. [Reviewing the Reviewer]

I think the review does a good job of giving people who have not read the
books an impression of what they are about. You give readers enough
information to decide whether this is for them, whether or not the reviewer
has liked it. So, if I was into 'poetry as therapy' I'd take a look at the
Walker book. I'm not, so I won't and I'm grateful to have been warned by the
review.

Your review does a good job of making some detailed comments about the
quality of craftsmanship of the writing. And I think you do well to locate
this within the context of the absence of standards. It gives me some
comfort that you place your activity in this broad context of the action of
reading and the authority/non-authority of the reviewer. I'm glad that you
acknowledge this but then proceed with confidence!

You give enough information for the reader to get a sense of your values and
then you apply them. The reader knows where you are coming from and can
locate your comments on the books - free to form their own view.

Some of your phrasing is delightfully strong. "... could make perfectly
unexceptionable, inoffensive poetry." Ouch! I have to say this quality of
yours added greatly to my enjoyment of the review. It suggests that you walk
your talk. You like strong poems, and you write strong reviews.

It is clear that you set high standards - Baudelaire and Shakespeare are
mentioned - and find Williams and Walker to be deficient. Now I find myself
wondering whether you have chosen the 'right' standards for evaluating these
two poets. Did they set out to be Canonical Poets? Did their publisher
position them as such? Perhaps it might have been fairer to them to judge
them by more appropriate standards? Whatever they might be?

I'm not prescribing this. Just opening the question.

I'm not suggesting that you would be the person to do this kind of review.
It wouldn't interest you. And I don't mean to suggest that your review has
'gone astray' or missed the mark. I think it has been very effective in
revealing your approach to poetry in general and your considered views about
these two books.

If criticism is intended, in part, to help the writer, your review gives
these two writers specific things to work on. But probably leaves them
overwhelmed too.

Thanks for sharing the review, Alison. I found several things that had me
agreeing heartily. [What kind of person thinks that we actually need MORE
sentimentality? Seems like a bizarre thought to me.]

Regards,

Gillian











%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%