Saying shit I shouldn't since 1977.
...about which, the less said, the better.
Strange choice for an example re: Newlove as mclennan must have read your ARC review of Newlove's Selected Poems which features almost no biography at all, instead referring to Newlove's "phrasal precision" and "carefully honed lines"...
I'm a champion of new formalism? Huh. I guess that's accurate in a life-as-we-know-it-is-carbon-based kind of way...
I think perhaps the author of this "review" betrays an awareness that he is one of the most talked about people on the scene--and yet no one in the conversation is talking about his poems.
"to argue for the form of the sonnet, and this collection, I would suppose, is Well's argument for the form, and an argument well made."I'd agree. A satisfying collection to me that I gave mention to a couple months back. http://pearlformance.livejournal.com/102123.htmlI'm still dipping into it now and then. It's a great idea for a collection and I'm glad you did it.I liked the bios that seemed to made it richer in literary context, like the ones on Acorn, Buffam, Clifford, Leslie, Coles,... nearly all of them are ellucidating of what works and how and enjoy the mastery of craft.Each bio felt personal but out of step was remarking on a breezy life anecdote of Newlove which sidestepped his work and cast him in unflattering light.What if a bio remarked how a poet was a diabetic who could pack a load of food away and ate rather than read once? Quirky. Odd. Different facet of person but...mm, see what I'm getting at?
I think that this article sheds some light on the problem.
Post a Comment