<<
"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?
|