> > > Everyone who cared about
> > > poetry in 1667 knew that PL was the thing,
> >
> > Really? Everyone? Were you there?
>
> The London literary world was a very small place and Milton had been
> central to it for decades. The sales of PL weren't all that bad,
> though disappointing to the poet and the bookseller, who may have been
> the chief instigator of the move from 10 to 12 books and the addition
> of the arguments.
Without wanting to dwell too much on this, David, it's the identification,
now as then, with the small world of the London literary with 'everyone who
cared about poetry' I question.
Other than that, the success of the mediocre is precisely that which
obscures original new work. MacDiarmid has a pithy: 'Talent is the enemy of
poetry'.
regards
david b
----- Original Message -----
From: David Latane <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: space fat/some quick, loose thoughts
> In response to david b.
>
> -------------------
> > > Everyone who cared about
> > > poetry in 1667 knew that PL was the thing,
> >
> > Really? Everyone? Were you there?
>
> The London literary world was a very small place and Milton had been
> central to it for decades. The sales of PL weren't all that bad,
> though disappointing to the poet and the bookseller, who may have been
> the chief instigator of the move from 10 to 12 books and the addition
> of the arguments.
>
> >
> > As for a certain lexicographer's views on regicides I think we are
> getting a
> > whiff of a whisp, er, of politics 'ere, ear.
> >
> > And I notice a loaded word 'Romantics' has just raised its pretty
> powdered
> > face.
> >
> > Obviously your observations justify the shrinking back of literature
> in
> > public libraries and a situation where conformity is the passport to
> > literary approbation.
>
> Not obvious to me--tho I obviously could have expressed myself better.
> I was merely trying to interject 1) the fact that Milton was not an
> unsuccessful poet in his own lifetime whose major work fell still born
> from the press, and 2)that Blake was not happily creating masterpieces
> for himself and a few others but was instead -- like normal mortals --
> occasionally envious of more successful and popular artists.
>
> What's the point?--I suppose I would assert that there are few cases
> of great poets meeting total neglect, though there are plenty of cases
> of mediocre ones getting more than their just deserts. The disparity
> has been exaggerated into statements like the one about Milton that I
> disputed, and used to comfort those who struggle against comparative
> neglect. Like most of my ilk, I share a reflex suspicion (usually well
> founded) of art that is too immediately popular.
>
> >
> > I like your point about Wittgensteinian discussions though.
>
> Well thanks.
>
> David L.
> >
> >
> >
> > david b
> >
|