I would suggest you take a look at the sequence "Spring and All" and
the late poems "Of Asphodel the Greeny Flower" and "The Desert
Music." Might help you see the stones in what you call fluff. And
then read the rest of Williams. I have my arguments with him, but
he's pretty much universally considered, after Dickinson and Whitman,
the essential forebear by members of almost all camps in this
benighted territory.
Mark
At 08:00 PM 3/28/2006, you wrote:
>it was only a "we" for fun on happy poets -
>
>i like what you say about eliot's weirdness & your description makes
>Sweeney A sound very appealing - I'll go & read it soonest
>
>Edmund
>
>Do 'we' think of Eliot as 'not happy' and Williams as being so? This
>particular part of 'we' doesn't look at things in that way at all. Williams
>certainly can seem fluffy compared to the cold weird and brilliant Eliot.
>The best Eliot poems, such as (of course) The Waste Land, Mr Appolinax
>(which is a gem that is inimatable, in that one Eliot conforms to his own
>stricture on Shakespeare as not bequeathing a tradition) Prufock a bit (it's
>readable and has great lines, but also sounds like Philip Larkin on speed)
>and too the real problem: Sweeney Agonistes, which is probably the most
>original poem of twentieth century English literature but also a headache:
>it seems to combine American vernacular with the musical hall and British
>oddities about domestic sex-murders and Greek tragedy, there was, and is
>still not, anything like that, it's a misogynist masterpiece, in tatters,
>it's an embarrassment, and it's brilliant.
>
>
>Best
>
>Dave
|