Dave,
Thanks for posting that. Always interested to see examples of Romantic dead
wood.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:10, you wrote:
> what
> interests me is that it conveys a) notions of a quasi-royal or 'apostolic'
> (it's exact word) succession in poetry and also b) that sensitivity is a
> quality that is somehow privileged among poets. Now that is not to deny
> that poets are not sensitive, I think we all know that! But to foreground
> one person's feelingness, as it were, against in effect all others, feels
> dubious to me.
Marx said something like: the first time something happens makes history; the
second time is a farce..... this seems beyond farce, even. A most curious
putrid relic that failed to crystallise in the sublime, perhaps?
Isn't sensitivity connected to the Romantic Ideal of sensibility? As for
Royal, forget the quasi qualification and I would have to agree. The really
really, really, really, funny thing is this review is set up as a model of
how to both judge and write poetry. One may well die laughing! (Better stop
reading the Guardian if you have any regard for life, perhaps?)
best wishes
Chris Jones.
|