 |
 |
Martin Corless-Smith wrote: > Hill's choice of a regular syntax combined with earned obfuscations might be unpopular Useful for us to bear this in mind: there are other kinds of difficulty than those created by monkeying with syntax. (Not that we shouldn't do that, but to do only that is more like the adoption of a mannerism than the discovery of anything vital in language, world or self.) > Hill has evidently had his Southwell and Herbert to hand. Canaan seems to sit more comfortably beside the Oxford Book of 16th Century Verse than anything modern (although it occurs at a quick look that it might be looked at as a Parliamentary Laureate work to read against/beside Hughes' Rain-Charm...).** > Is it embarassing that he takes himself seriously? I, for one, find him most appealing when "at play" either in the persona of an apocryphal Spanish poet Sebastian Arruruz or as a snot-nosed kid from the West Midlands. **The more interesting comparison might be between Prynne & Hill: similarities of moral ambition, sources (Bunyan & Celan spring to mind), ages (H by 4 years the senior), strategic use of difficulties & diction out of the OED's more obscure regions. Any takers? Back to my George Formby records! Best wishes, Pete. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%