Joseph Duemer wrote:
> Thanks, Andrew. I wonder what other poets, loved in youth, flist members
> have had to reevaluate.
>
> jd
>
My issue is even more basic. How easily we bandy about terminology,
assuming all the while that there is a common language here! There
isn't--if it hasn't made it to central New Jersey. If Wright is
sentimental, it is in some vague sense that I cannot quite identify.
What *is* sentimentality? How basic a question is that? No, you may
*not* consult or certainly quote from Abrams' dictionary of literary
terms:-). Is a display of...what the hell IS sentiment, Joe?-- without
exception a "Bad Thing"? After we survive the vomitacious death of
Little Eva, what is "sentimental" thereafter? I feel like I'm trying to
decode something that I am perhaps assumed to understand--and I don't,
not a bit of it.
Oh, I'm not being difficult or obstreperous for its/their own sake. It
would be even more fun if I were.
KW
--
------------------
Kenneth Wolman rainermaria.typepad.com
"I agree with the Chekhov character who, when in a crisis, he is
reminded that 'this, too, shall pass,' responds 'Nothing
passes.'"--Philip Roth
|