Hi Matthew
I have to agree with Alison on Walcott. I also think Walcott's gift is landscape; my
favourite poem of his is 'For the Altarpiece of the Roseau Valley Church'. At his
best, as in this poem, he manages to encapsulate people in the details of the
setting and viceversa:
between adorations, one might see,
if one were there, and not there,
looking in at the windows
the real faces of angels.
With the epic the subject is a human (as opposed to mythos), for better or for
worse. I've been batteling it out with the word 'epic' for a while, and the best
translation of it in our English is 'about someone'or 'upon (a human)'. I think
Walcott's use of something like Dante's form (cantos of three line stanzas) is not
suitable for a book that doesn't seem to have that much to do with protagonists.
Most epis are, whether we like it or not, prosaic narratives - although that's not a
rule. For Dante the three-line stanza progression works beautifully, especially when
he's caught in a conversation and each stanza denotes a different speaker. For
Walcott's valleys and rivers and trees and animals, I don't think the form is
suitable.
Ali
---- Original Message ----
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thu 2/22/01 12:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Walcott
Matthew -
I have to echo David here. Since I don't have time to look at Omeros, my
criticism is only going to be schematic: it bored and disappointed me,
and it lacked the sense of drama that Homer has. I don't mind Walcott's
longer line, or baroque extravagances; in fact, I really liked The Bounty
(esp the title poem), and continue to be a great admirer of his earlier
work; but Omeros was I think a mistake, and for me collapsed under its
own ponderous weight.
Best
Alison
|