That's two misunderstandings, and counting...
The argument's reasonable, or at least circular - if a mainstream judge
likes the poem it must have that mainstream factor. I take you to be saying
that poets of a mainstream tendency would really like to be writing about
English lanes, but these days don't quite dare.
You probably have a clearer 'sense of the mainstream' than I do.
Still, I'm grateful for the poem, even though I get a blank page when
downloading the article.
----- Original Message -----
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Forward for RFL
You definitely seem to have misunderstood me if you think I supposed the
chiffchaff anything but literal.
That the poem has sufficient mainstream appeal to wow Andrew Motion and to
win a major prize seems undeniable in the circumstances. Add to that an
English lane, a couple of warblers and some apple blossom. Add to that some
classic mainstream evocation - the gleaming mute like metal, the "flinching"
moth-flight ... No, I think what I said was reasonable.
That the poem has other non-mainstream aspects is not something I want to
deny. I don't think his botanical/zoological expertise is one of them,
though. That expertise seems eminently compatible with my sense of the
mainstream. Nabokov's lepidopterist skills come to mind.
Anyway, gives me a chance to link to this article about the poem:
http://www.cambridgeliteraryreview.org/wp-content/uploads/Noel-TodCLR5.pdf
|