 |
 |
In message <01bfa1fc$0e49a080$LocalHost@default>, pain <[log in to unmask]> writes >I must confess that I haven't read much of Fisher's work --but I trawled >through the John Tranter interview (1989) "Jacket 1" and from that interview >I gathered that Fisher doesn't make any great claims for his poetry, he >isn't a theoretician by any means, indeed he didn't involve himself in the >"debates". He is just a poet. I can't really see the purpose of having a go >at him. If anything the guy is too modest. Read the interview. > > > The point I was making has nothing to do with RF's own opinion of his work. Nor am I 'having a go at him' for the sake of it. What I was trying to get at is the way his work is so frequently invoked in discussions here and elsewhere as a central point of reference, with the uncritical and uncriticised assumption that we all agree about its value and centrality. It's the assumption which bothers me, & its tendency towards an unwarranted orthodoxy. -- AH %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%