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.
|
|