 |
 |
I've a lot of time for Clampitt. Her close attention to her subjects carries an almost moral charge. I do see what Martin means about the aural qualities of her work, though it has its own particular beauty, and I don't think I could write that way myself; but that doesn't keep me from appreciating her poems on their own terms. joanna ----- Original Message ----- From: "MJ Walker" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: Re: Drop Dead Twice > Waking from my dogged slumbers I find a really interesting thread, in > which the clash of judgments reveals the depth & firmness (I could also > say entrenched character) of different perspectives. As an expat Brit, not > particularly well read in recent poetry and indifferent to US > kudos/culture wars, I have registered Vendler's academic proficiency & > insight (of a special kind) into poetry (e.g. Shakespeare's sonnets) but > also her apparent blindness to any writing that did not conform to her > poetic agenda, if one may call it that - while pushing poets such as Amy > Clampitt whose work seemed almost unreadable to me, like a lot of verse, > because it is written with little attention to the (my) ear. But I am > going to try the new Muldoon, whose work I have found it hard to engage > with & thus hear - *Madoc*!- hitherto (which probably says more about my > poor intellectual & verbal grasp than about his poetry. It's tough being > dumb.) > mj > > > joe green wrote: > >>There are worlds and worlds unaffected by Vendler. > -- > A man may write of love, and not be in love, as well as of husbandrie, and > not goe to plough: or of witches, and be none: or of holinesse, and be > flat prophane. - Giles Fletcher the Elder. >