?
I like the content
incl the stuff that someone called crabbed
and he's technically often highly accomplished -
it's not technique for its own sake but the kind which gets the appropriate
words in the right place
and I have learned from it as well as being pleased by it
L
----- Original Message -----
From: "schwartzgk" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 17 March 2002 05:06
Subject: Re: Charles Tomlinson
| 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.
| > |
| >
|
|