Lawrence
It wasn’t my intention to evade the points you made, but I was rather
hoping Ian Seed might respond and save me the job. But I don’t think he’s
quite recovered from his surprise at the little debate he’s stirred up,
and he’s keeping quiet.
I’m pleased that Michael has reminded us that Ian’s review was very, very
appreciative of Sheila Murphy’s book. It’s a point worth remembering,
especially in the light of Tim saying how Ian “doesn’t like the work and
doesn’t know why”, which might lead some people to think it’s a negative
review, and which is a better example of shoddiness than anything in the
review itself).
Regarding the quotation marks, I can’t respond any better than Michael --
Ian’s meaning seemed and still seems obvious to me. I have an idea about
the difference between reading a poem and experiencing it. I know what
you’re getting at, and I agree with you to a degree. Having said which,
when I read Ian’s piece what he said about not being able to experience
the poem made me think about what he might mean, and I came to consider
the difference between reading a poem and feeling excluded by it, not
being able to get anything out of it, and the opposite of that. And the
stages between, if there are any. I think being able to get something out
of the poem is what Ian meant by his use of the word “experience”. I could
be wrong, of course, but I’m not sure that would matter particularly. As
an editor, the review struck me as appreciative, informed, relatively
brief, and readable and able to create an interest in Sheila’s work. Isn’t
that okay? As Michael points out, the way we “imbibe” poetry is enormously
complicated. It looks like the way we imbibe reviews is pretty
interesting, too.
All the best
Martin
|