on 8/1/01 12:28 PM, Martin J. Walker at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I've tried reading her work, as it's easily available on line, but can't
> really relate to it ~ you know, that feeling that it's all doubtless very
> clever but... yawn...
I admire and always learn from Graham's engagements with philosophy
(Nietzsche in _Hybrids of Plants and Ghosts_, e.g.) and was pleased to give
a copy of the poem (in _The Errancy_, I think) where she takes up _The Fold_
to argue with Deleuze to its translator, Tom Conley, who seemed pretty
amazed by it. But it can be so difficult for intellectual poets (of this age
anyway)--and maybe all the more so if they're women--to get taken seriously
and have their work engaged with in turn, given how demanding it is. The
sort of brush-off Martin gives Graham here with a backhanded compliment on
her "cleverness" is no more engaged than John Tranter's "drivel" is a
genuine critical term. It's all the more heartening and en-couraging (to
me), then, that Graham's work has succeeded in finding a relatively large
audience and in generating true critique from (some) reviewers.
Such serious and intelligent poetry demands a similarly serious
acknowledgment from its commentators just as a matter of respect, it seems
to me, not to mention the obvious desirability of a corresponding degree of
critical intelligence. To paraphrase the adage: if you can't say something
smart, better to say nothing at all.
Cheers,
Candice
|