Lawrence Upton wrote:
>
> Frederick
>
> I resent this quite deeply. People often get no comments on their work and
> there are all sorts of reasons for that
>
> It's insulting to suggest that people would not comment on your poetry as
> poetry because of your political stance - although the linguistic manner in
> which you express yourself e.g. "psychotic scum thugs" hardly leads me to
> expect either innovation and / or elegance and control (and I am speaking of
> the sloppiness of that language, separate from the meaning)
>
> My problem with many of your postings is, more than their violence, your
> refusal to justify what you say; and the peculiar prefatory tantrum of your
> latest post reads to me as though you think you've found another way to make
> a rabble-rousing political speech without, yet again, worrying about a
> consistent argument
>
> Mind you, had you posted the poem without that preface, I would not have
> responded. It is my usual practice to say nothing when I have nothing to
> say, no matter how hard I try, that could be considered positive.
>
> In the circumstances, however, as one of those who take issue with your
> personal opinions, I'll respond... I won't say much because I anticipate
> you'll dislike my response
>
> I do not know why this writing is laid out as it is. Why not set it as
> prose?
>
> The diction is more than a little cliched. You use many obvious words (in
> the contexts) words that often are used. It's boilerplate writing
>
> just one example e.g. "ignorance of vital facts" - "vital" has long lost all
> its vitality used thus
>
> If you abuse the language, it will deny you its power. Reading this, I'd say
> its bags are packed
>
> I'm sorry. My first response was sharp and I am glad I thought better of it
> before sending... I thought then of saying nothing, as usual; but I think
> you deserve a truthful response though I take no pleasure in giving you one
>
> L
You may well be write about the phrase "vital facts" - but as a general
principle, in a narrative or quasi-narrative poem I think the situation
(the overall situation, and that of a given passage) is more important
than glittering word-play. In narrative poetry, situation is metaphor;
the words must sparingly and efficiently bring the situation across.
The total failure of Walcott's "Omeros" was that he thought a long
narrative poem must also be a lyric poem; the reader clambers over fancy
metaphors and loses sight of the architectonics. The situation in this
poem is unusual, contradictory, thought-provoking, full of depth, up to
Modernist specs ... but of course it isn't up to me to say that, is it.
|