Doug - Apologies, somehow missed your message in this thread. However, I
have to disagree that W.E. Williams was "prescient" in his summation of the
worth of DHL's poetry. I was leafing through the book last night, and still
remain unimpressed.
Later in this thread, Douglas Clark remarks that he first read DHL's "Snake"
as a schoolboy and it made an immediate impression on him. As an adolescent,
I was (of course!?) taken with "Figs". Indeed, it was the only poem of his
that immediately sprang to mind. Read it last night and was much taken with
it's overt (if not extreme) sensuality/sexuality. But I still do not
consider it a "good" poem. Reading it, my fingers were itching to take a
blue pencil to it and start editing ruthlessly (vide my comments last night
on DHL's unwillingness to revise).
Cheers,
Viv
Douglas Barbour" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hey Viv
>
> I'd say that editor was prescient indeed. I would say that quite a few
> younger readers do not find Lawrence's fiction all that great, but
perhaps,
> for those fit few who still read poetry, we could interet them in his
> poetry. There are works there that cut to the bone...
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|