Douglas,
No problem. If everyone liked everything in the book, I'd start getting
worried. I've moved as I have done because of my own imperatives; to assume
that those imperatives are universal would be both arrogant and stupid on
my part, I reckon. Well, even more arrogant and stupid than I already know
myself to be capable of.
Remember, though, that between the Pentahedron period and 'the work from
the 90s', I had an almost twenty-year silence. I think you can infer from
that that I felt there were pretty serious problems for me with continuing
what I'd been doing, though I *was* satisfied with a reasonable amount of
it (otherwise it wouldn't figure in the collected). I needed to reassess
completely what I was doing, and find new solutions, new routes to
understanding and expression, and yes, those new solutions, when I found
them, turned out to be quite a change from what I'd done before.
In answer to your question, no, I don't write (primarily) for academics,
though if academics enjoy what I do, then good! My criteria for success are
various and shifting. I like Randolph's earlier remark that he found some
of the work beautiful. That matters to me. So does emotional impact: if I
feel something I write is emotionally barren, then I dump it, no matter how
clever or successful in other terms. But is it necessary that you find
something I write either beautiful or moving just because I feel it to be?
I don't see that as being part of the rule-book.
One of the recent comments I've most liked about some of my recent stuff
came from an old friend. She said she'd tried reading a particular piece
several times, but had so far been unable to finish it. I said this
intrigued me, and asked her what the dynamic was. She said she found
herself drawn in by the piece, and although she didn't 'understand it' she
felt moved and altered by it, but she was prevented from finishing it by
the fact that it started a sort of buzzing in her head - a noise almost
physically experienced. Each time, she had to leave the poem down, but each
time she came back to it. It's for people like her that I write.
So, let's both count it a bonus that you like the early stuff, and we'll
see what this next millennium holds, okay?
Best wishes (and thanks for the straight talk),
Trevor
>Trevor knows I have the book so I feel I must make some comment.
>He already knows my high opinion of the quality of his language
>and that holds for the book. I really enjoyed the first two sections
>being 'Sweeney' and 'Pentahedron...'. But then we gradually parted
>company until I found the work from the 90s very much a waste of
>time. I was very sad about this. I just re-read the book to
>double-check myself. There is no doubt about Trevor's ability.
>The question is who does he want to read him? Academics?
>Sorry about that but it would have been even ruder not to comment.
>
>
>
>Douglas Clark, Bath, England mailto: [log in to unmask]
>Lynx: Poetry from Bath .......... http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc/lynx.html
|