>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
Viv
I wouldn't want to set up shop as a defender of Lawrence's poems, beyond
the few words I originally posted. I suspect I would want to 'edit' them
too, but that's from a position nearly a century on, & having read so much
fine open form poetry since. I think the sensuality of vision comes through
despite what we might call the 'flatness' of some of the lines. But then, I
often itch to 'edit' other poets I admire on the whole, too. The best thing
to do in that situation is to relax, read them as best you can for what
they are doing not what you would do. At least so I suspect...
Doug
Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
(h) [780] 436 3320 (b) [780] 492 0521
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
I go down to the Twilight Arcade
and watch the Martian invaders,
already appalled by our language,
pointing at what they want.
Bill Manhire
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|