Hello All,
          Carl, I think I now undersstand your point here and yes, this I can agree with. I also wonder whether Carl´s `coherence´, Frank´s `story´ that doesn´t `detract from the reader´s  capacity to become involved´ and Sue´s response to Frank´s idea (I don´t have your exact words) may well be different ways of saying the same thing. I´m still bothered though by using beauty as a critical criterion and also by those of Emily D that Sue quoted. Of course we all make our own judgements about beauty in poetry, music or any art but isn´t it too subjective to be a basis for value judgements?
I´m still thinking about Carl´s stress on the need for the `supportive context´. It´s an interesting one and I´m not sure if I´ve properly got hold of how you want to apply it. It sounds, of course, like the organic unity that we´ve all heard about. Does this mean that a poem cannot suddenly take a new departure in mid-course? I´m going to have a look at some poets like Muldoon and Hill, whom I often find difficult to follow, or someone like Ashberry who often doesn´t write in a literal sense and see whether this yardstick will apply to their work. It may be though that I´m taking your comment in too narrow a sense, Carl. You actually say `things need to lead to and to draw from other things´ but how clear does the poet need to make the connection? How far can the poet rely on the reader to supply the link that makes the connection? We have said many times (and it seems to be well agreed) that the writer should not give the reader everything. Examples are needed for this, I feel, and that can lead to rather long and complex messages, but if anyone wants to pursue this further I, for one, will be very interested to hear what they have to say.



Best wishes,   Mike





--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
> Carl Wrote: If a novice were to happen to use some of her lines by a
> theoretical coincidence, in all likelihood the result would be telliness.
>
> um, sorry, but the above doesn't doesn't make sense unless it is 'ok' for
> one person to describe things in a certain way and not for another to do so
> in exactly the same words - are we saying it's ok just because one is a
> 'made' poet and the other a novice? I think not.

Some of her lines but not other of her lines. In other words the
supportive context wouldn't be present. As I went on to say, "Coherence
is really key. Things need to lead to and to draw from other things
within the poem."

Carl