 |
 |
I find it both good and interesting to have a response to a poem unmediated by the history of its criticism -- when that response is from someone whose track record within the context of the current forum is proven. It leads me to fresh thinking, re-thinking, amusement, whatever. I would not, of course, expect to find this response in an academic publication without the critical background being acknowledged/examined to some extent. Different context to here, where we are much more knock-about, it appears to me. Leona > From: [log in to unmask] > Reply-To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 20:16:37 -0400 (EDT) > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: a terrible poem > > Nate wrote: > >> I don't usually feel _obliged_ upon reading a poem to turn to the criticism, >> no. Whether the poem is ironic or not seems to me to have little to do with >> its merits. I'm certainly glad I didn't come across the poem earlier, >> anyway. > > But maybe you do have an obligation, as a poetry editor yourself, > to treat a poem responsibly and with a minimum of respect by at least > informing yourself about it before _posting_ it to a public forum with > a ridiculing subject-heading like "a terrible poem" and a comment on it > of "phenomenally bad"--terms as out of place in scholarly and critical > commentary as "worst poem" is (which John Temple has noted). > > I'm not a Yeats fan myself, but his poetry has earned a canonic place > that entitles it to serious critique, not the sort of mannerless and > rather juvenile terms you applied to it--in my humble, etc. Poetry is > what we all "do" here in one way or another, so I think its cheapening > in this forum shows a lack of professional courtesy, too. > > But maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way-- > > Candice > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%