I've found a lot in Tomlinson, perhaps because he's been such a bridge
between us and you, and because, as I wrote earlier, there are many places
I've lived and he's written of, that I've then seen even more vividly
because of it.
How does he draw you with his content and technique?
Gerald
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Charles Tomlinson
> briefly, I am sad that Douglas finds Tomlinson "a bad poet", though as he
> says "to me" it would be silly to argue...
>
> I have often found him a fascinating poet, both technically and in content
>
> L
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frederick Pollack" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 09 March 2002 11:16
> Subject: Re: Charles Tomlinson
>
>
> | Douglas Clark wrote:
> | >
> | > I am glad Dave enjoyed his reading but I must confess
> | > I have never seen anything in his poetry. I remember
> | > asking Peter Dale why Agenda had devoted a special issue
> | > to him and Peter said he had no idea and he didnt like
> | > Tomlinson's work either but William Cookson had gone
> | > ahead. (They were both editors of Agenda at the time
> | > but Cookson owns the magazine which nowadays seems to
> | > have run out of funds after the withdrawal of its funding.)
> | >
> | > I thought very highly of Tomlinson's translations of
> | > Bertolucci and if I ever see his Ungaretti I must buy
> | > it. Tomlinson is a visual artist as well as a poet.
> | > But to me he is a very bad poet.
> | >
> | >
> |
> | Well I for one disagree. I admit I find him dry and don't read him
> | often - but when I do I'm always impressed, and used to be intimidated,
> | by his precise observation and rhetorical restraint. Someone once
> | described T as a great French poet lost in English.
> |
>
|