|As we expect from Geoffrey Hill we have a genuine poet's language| /
Douglas Clark in his recent quadraphonic posting on G Hill
*genuine? *poet's language. For some reason that picture of Bunting in
front of a gate comes to mind
_Luxurious and opulent_ - really? that's the mark of _genuine poet's
language_ is it?
_But the problem in the book is to understand what is going on. In his
finest poem `Funeral Music' this did not matter because the impulse of the
threnody was so vital that it transmuted itself into meaning._
Oh please
_It speaks to itself and not in a way that we are delighted to overhear. It
is too difficult._... so in what sense, any sense, even in this context, do
we have genuine poet's language?
and how if we are NOT delighted to overhear it, how shall we _read this book
and glory in the succulence of the language_?
>From what I remember of my last reading of Hill - some time ago - he
deserves more than this?
| I hope the proceedings of the conference will be published, but in the
|mean email time,
|Frances
May I add my voice to that as a non attender
i tghink i was partly responsible in getting others to go there and then
couldnt get there myself
I DO hope we see proceedings
L
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|