Dear Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Seed" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: Exultations & Difficulties
> My review of Sheila Murphy was positive, as Michael and Martin have
pointed
> out.
I did not say it wasn't
When I say she is more interested in where language will take us than
> in writing a "good poem" (oops those quotation marks again)
Yes, there they go again. That's what I asked about. Why the quotes?
, I mean that
> she wants to go BEYOND just a "good poem", in a not dissimilar way to say,
> John Ashbery
You could have said that. It might have helped. But... Ive just looked at
what i said and I think it's clear that it was the end of the sentence that
caused me a problem. What did you mean by putting _good poem_ in quotes? I
understood the beginning of the sentence
> I use many complimentary adjectives about Sheila's work in the review and
> declare myself a "fan", which I am.
Again, I didn't say you didn't. You were also damn rude about it as well,
but all I asked for was unambiguous language
> There are aspects of her work I don't enjoy, and this may be a subjective
> response, but it is an honest one, starting from my experience (sans
> quotation marks) as a reader. To put it another way, just because I like
> Bob Dylan's Bringing It All Back Home, doesn't mean I will feel the same
> way about Under The Red Sun. This has nothing to do with
> suggesting "improvements".
Thanks for all that. I can only conclude that you don't know what you meant
either.
Sheila Murphy takes risks. One of them is, it seems to me, the way she
broadcasts the works rapidly, where others might wait - this is a guess and
I may be wrong; but I see her broadcasting in contexts where i know others
too are getting the work out quickly
And the bit you quote seems a good example of a piece of a poem that doesn't
come off. My question was about *your use of language. I didn't say you hadn
't identified a worrying piece of writing.
I have tried to analyse what is going on when she misses like this and
haven't really got very far. So I have great sympathy with anyone who tries.
I haven't even become sure that there is one kind of failure so that "when
she misses like this" may be wrong. But an accusation of falsity seems to me
to be false itself, an accusation of pretension possibly defensive, possibly
invertedly snobbish.
Writing _At its worst, the writing has that pretentious, falsely
intellectual quality typical of much so-called "innovative" poetry._ isn't
much of an attempt at a response to the difficulty. It's really rather
aggressive and dismissive in a way that is not balanced by saying nice
things elsewhere.
My point, my question, concerned the quotations as well as humpty-dumpty
words like _innovative_ and trojan words like _so-called_.
What for instance of the pretentious, falsely intellectual quality typical
of much mainstream poetry?
Pretension etc is a problem with which all manner of poets must struggle
So the quotes remain problematic - are you saying that work claiming to be
innovative isn't innovative? Or what? You make "no" "attempt" to explain
I don't think i accused you of dishonesty, Ian; but as you assert that you
*are honest I have to say your unexplained use of quotes makes me
suspicious - I am saying this / No I'm not. Or what?
"Please" treat that "Or what?" as a "rhetorical" "question" - you know what
i mean
"Lawrence"
|