Robin,
If you want to read the Armitage poem you just have to press the link in the
first post, as the rest of us presumably did.
If you prefer your role of lordly adjudicator ("I rest my case, m'lud, and will
leave bothering with Armitage for another day"), well, frankly, who cares?
Jamie
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:23:28 -0500, Robin Hamilton
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
><<
> "How's that?"
>I'd say it did quite well on the nastiness scale.
>Though it doesn't distinguish itself from 20,000 other bits of "criticism"
>posted every day that cost nothing to write.
>Jamie
>>>
>
>Um, Jamie, I hate to point this out to you, but both dave ("a dropped slab
>of the realist novel") and Mark ("Most are skillful and nothing more. Most
>take no risks whatsoever.") made *specific points about the Armitage poem,
>whether these points were correct or not, whereas you ...
>
>You told us you liked it.
>
>Slam, bam, thank you ma'am.
>
>I rest my case, m'lud, and will leave bothering with Armitage for another
>day.
>
>If even Armitage's defenders can't think of any *particular reason to read
>him, other than the trust-my-judgement card, well ...
>
>Robin
>
>**********************************
>
>From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Tuesday, 16 February, 2010 22:51:43
>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>
>Shall I try? Probably 20,000 poems a day are posted or published. Most are
>skillful and nothing more. Most take no risks whatsoever. Most want to be
>liked. Most are crashingly boring. This is one of those.
>
>The problem is, this sort of waste makes it harder to fight through to find
>the good stuff, the stuff that's cost the poet something to write and that
>will cost the reader something to read.
>
>How's that?
|