 |
 |
>"I can understand how Heaney’s remarks about avant-garde poetry could irritate a number of poets and readers – they are brief, done in very broad strokes, cooler than lukewarm. But is he under any diplomatic (or “senatorial”) obligation to pretend he likes what he doesn’t? Had he done so, then there might really be some point in calling him “dissembling”. Jamie McKendrick"< Sorry, I've been away. Sorry, I'm back. McKendrick hits the toy nail on the head with a softy hammer when he says that Heaney's remarks were brief in broad strokes etc. I said somewhere in the chaos that that was the main problem and why it made Jeffrey's attempt to tackle it so difficult. But what do you do? Leave Heaney's bit of throw-away comment to float and fester, almost as though it wasn't really worth his answering the question on such a tired topic in the first place? I stick with my opinion that Heaney has never given the topic much thought, and it shows in those responses. I might be wrong of course. Anyway, I don't blame him for that, after all, he never chose the questions. But then he, or his defenders at least, should be able to admit the limitations of their interest and knowledge. What Heaney said regarding this topic was shabby when compared with his other responses, and I still think that Jeffrey was right to challenge that - at least he bothered - the rest of us didn't. OK, what happens when Carol Ann is asked for her opinion of such matters? No joke folks. Tim A.=