Right on, Martin. I pretty well agree right down the line with you.
The question I come to now is: who would I re-read, not only for
pleasure, although Davenport provides a lot of that, but to learn
something truly interesting.
On the other hand, I do get that from many of Derrida's works, too.
Paglia never had that kind of style...
Doug
On 29-May-05, at 7:22 AM, MJ Walker wrote:
> Since I've been asked - Schadenfreude. The adjective is schadenfroh. I
> found Camille very amusing & stimulating in SP, not so much in what
> followed, which I have merely sampled. It/she seems repetitive &
> obsessional. This review is apparently on the ball. CP obviously has no
> idea about contemporary poetry & is just scattershooting from the hip.
> It's like the broadsides aimed with dull regularity at so-called
> difficult modern music (brrr - Schoenberg & Co.) Theory interests me
> very little (since I seldom understand it - when I do it appears either
> platitudinous or mad); I want the pleasures of the text & I want them
> now. In this case (CP) the law of diminishing returns obtains - whereas
> Guy Davenport, for example, just went on being as good as it gets, not
> being ideologically driven. Are there any critics now active (Kermode
> is
> a survivor but one sees relatively little of him nowadays) whom one
> reads as one did Empson, Kenner or Davenport - or, indeed, Duncan or
> Thom Gunn - for the sheer enjoyment of the thing, while being
> intellectually regaled? Heaney bores me, poetry or prose - which may be
> my blankness. Und sonst?
> mj
>
Douglas Barbour
11655 - 72 Avenue NW
Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
(780) 436 3320
I think the land knows we are here,
I think the land knows we are strangers.
Al Purdy
|