I've a lot of time for Clampitt. Her close attention to her subjects carries
an almost moral charge. I do see what Martin means about the aural qualities
of her work, though it has its own particular beauty, and I don't think I
could write that way myself; but that doesn't keep me from appreciating her
poems on their own terms.
joanna
----- Original Message -----
From: "MJ Walker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Drop Dead Twice
> Waking from my dogged slumbers I find a really interesting thread, in
> which the clash of judgments reveals the depth & firmness (I could also
> say entrenched character) of different perspectives. As an expat Brit, not
> particularly well read in recent poetry and indifferent to US
> kudos/culture wars, I have registered Vendler's academic proficiency &
> insight (of a special kind) into poetry (e.g. Shakespeare's sonnets) but
> also her apparent blindness to any writing that did not conform to her
> poetic agenda, if one may call it that - while pushing poets such as Amy
> Clampitt whose work seemed almost unreadable to me, like a lot of verse,
> because it is written with little attention to the (my) ear. But I am
> going to try the new Muldoon, whose work I have found it hard to engage
> with & thus hear - *Madoc*!- hitherto (which probably says more about my
> poor intellectual & verbal grasp than about his poetry. It's tough being
> dumb.)
> mj
>
>
> joe green wrote:
>
>>There are worlds and worlds unaffected by Vendler.
> --
> A man may write of love, and not be in love, as well as of husbandrie, and
> not goe to plough: or of witches, and be none: or of holinesse, and be
> flat prophane. - Giles Fletcher the Elder.
>
|