 |
 |
I thought Alison's review was a fine piece of work - I haven't read either book - poetry as therapy is enough to put me off the one and, as for the other, I've heard Williams read a number of poems including the one Hugh's so fond of, and wasn't suficiently impressed to wish to read more - there is such a volume of poetry available and I have so much catching up to do that I tend to apply similar standards to Alison and read only the best (as it seems to me, naturally). >PS Where the reviewer wrote:- 'Often they depend on >their subject matter to carry the poemıs energy' - one is >mindful that even Philip Larkin thought subject matter >more important than technique. > As for the above comment, I don't think that was the distinction Alison was setting up. I felt she was talking about poetry where the language is working, something is happening on the page and the words are not just a vehicle for commentary. I think it's the language poets (correct me if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time) who talk about using an opaque language rather than the transparent words which only serve to convey meaning and have none of the substance of someone like, shall we say Paul Celan (I know Alison loves his work). Geraldine _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com