[A. E. Stallings]

Interesting essay by English poet James Fenton on Philip Larkin in New York Review of Books. You can read online at:

http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeat...010412023F#top

[Len Krisak]

Ah, screw Fenton. Nasty little
commie snot. When he's as good
as Larkin, ask him to deliver himself
of his deep thoughts.

(Having a bad [non?]-hair day)

[Richard Wakefield]

Len, without saying anything about Fenton's take on Larkin, I think your comment brings up a vexed and ageless issue. Do we have to be better at something than the person whose work we criticizing before we can legitimately criticize it? I'm serious. We've all at one time or another responded to someone's criticism by challenging him or her to try to do better, and we've all been responded to that way as well. As a person who gets money for writing criticism, I hope I can defend the stand that one needn't be another's artistic superior to criticize his or her work -- but of course I have that vested interest in defending it.
So how about it: Is our criticism or commentary undercut by the limitations of our own talent?
Richard

[RJ McCaffery]

Hello Richard-

You asked: “So how about it: Is our criticism or commentary undercut by the limitations of our own talent?”

I think, quite obviously, yes. One could argue that it’s *possible* to produce a stunning poetry critic who is incapable of writing poetry themselves, but I’ve yet to see one. I think that any number of critics who write “decent” or “fundamentally sound but limited poetry” and very good criticisms spring to mind (William Logan) but the really *great* theorists, critics, and essayists have been top notch poets- Shelly, Milton, Wordsworth, Pope, Auden, Eliot, Coleridge, Frost, Stevens, Pound. These are the critics that the critics quote, say what you will about their styles and preferences.

Can you name me someone who’s produced great criticism without writing great poetry? Aristotle springs to mind- but then again, we don’t know if he wrote any poetry or not. Maybe Fussel? I suspect if you do find someone they’ll be either very good at “interpreting” literature (which any fool can do, just give them the system to plug the poem into) or categorizing a range of poems to produce a theory of poetics.

More fundamentally though (and I write this from the perspective of a poet), would you, as a poet, really “trust” criticism intended to shape the course of your future work (I'd likt to distinguish this from reader *reaction* which is necessary and important yet different here) which came from someone who couldn’t themselves write?

Best,


------------------
RJ McCaffery
Eye Dialect
http://www.contemporarypoetry.com/dialect/

[Michael Juster]

Naaah. You don't have to be good to criticize--wouldn't be much discussion of the best otherwise.

[MacArthur]

My thoughts:
I don't trust any critics, poets or not, on contemporaries or recents (anyone post-WWII, now that poets enjoy the longevity of Roman Cardinals)-- essentially for the reasons Dana Gioia outlined in "Can Poetry Matter?". Things haven't gotten better since '95...only worse.

It's getting harder to find books of literary criticism on acknowledged greats-- "How to Appreciate...". Most recent ones are too heavy on scholarship. The series edited by Harold Bloom is (I think) unreadable and utterly uninteresting...pure Academic.
Poetry may be OK, all said and done (how can an Art die?). But literary criticism is in poor shape. The casual opinions shared on the threads here have been far more of an education for me.

[Tim Murphy]

First, Fenton on Larkin. So Queen's Counsel found Larkin's last will and testament "repugnant?" I've always thought Larkin repugnant, but a pretty major poet. Fenton by contrast is a terrific fellow and a very minor poet, but I thought his essay was very informative.

Re: the discussion initiated by Richard, I side with Mike. Yet the best critics of my generation are probably Gioia, Gwynn, Steele, Wakefield and Mason, all of whom are good to very good poets. Mac, you would really enjoy the latter's Poetry of Life and the Life of Poetry (Story Line).

[Robert J. Clawson]

"Maybe Fussel?"

Not many writers could leap his bar. What, maybe one a score?

[SteveWal]

I don't much like Fenton's poetry myself (though I quite like "A German Requiem"; but I do think that dismissing someone's opinions because they happen to be "commie" is really rather infantile. Larkin's not the first good poet to be an unpleasant human being and he won't be the last.


------------------
Steve Waling

[Tim Murphy]

Steve, You haven't been around here long enough to know that New Formalism, and indeed the Sphere itself, are infested by a gang of heavily armed ruffians known as the West Chester Gun and Couplet Club. There are particularly dangerous cells of these lunatic rednecks in North Dakota and Massachusetts.