Aaargh, I give up! (Said goodhumoredly but).
It ought to be possible to look at a statement (or pair of them) for exactly
what's said there and to comment on it as such, impersonally and in terms of
the ideas borne by it. Such statements are presumably owned by whoever wrote
the, and such comments are presumably invited by whoever posts them. If
comment is not your goal or expectation in posting anything, then please
don't (thanks).
"Context is everything," as John Kinsella likes to say!
Candice
Me:
>> A serious question posed with no intent to bait anyone (let alone provoke
>> indignant defenses of Gould's or Logan's life/work)--
Sevanthi:
> Actually, Logan's expressed desire (and expressed and expressed) is for
> contemporary poetry to have a wider range than just the lyric, and to
> encompass larger subjects. I'm not sure why you feel he is incapable of
> distinguishing grandeur from grandiosity. He has, for example, praised
> Geoffrey Hill, who is as philosophic as they come. In the piece whose url I
> posted, he goes into some detail about why the problems with Jorie Graham's
> work. As he says, and as Adam Kirsch discusses at some length, it's more of
> a question of yielding something worthwhile (meaning, music, *something*)
> for the trouble of one's attention.
|