Oh, and Gregory, thanks for your kind remarks about my essay!

Adam, thank you for accepting my apology. Katy certainly knew Mikey better than anyone here, and I shall say for the record that Michael and I were NEVER EVER STONED OR DRUNK TOGETHER. And if you believe that, I have a very nice bridge from Manhattan to Brooklyn which I would like to sell.

Thanks, Katy. As Tim says, no one is better placed than you to give a complete picture of MD. And as I admitted to Tim, I've been overstating a bit. That has been, however, partly the point. Since Donaghy's death an industry has grown up dedicated to asserting his special value - not merely as an artist, but as an exceptional human being - and this seems to me without parallel. It's disconcerting, at the very least. Worse, it makes it hard to offer reasoned assessments of the work. Those of us who stand outside the charmed circle might be forgiven for feeling a bit bemused - even browbeaten.

A different view is possible, even necessary. When the only acceptable mode is panegyric, it's inevitable that the occasional voice will be raised in challenge. As for "Haunts" there's no correct way to read it. I, along with some other readers, happen to share a disquiet about it. I'm not alone in preferring the Paterson poems. I trust that is permissible.

Returning briefly to my wider difficulty with the poetry in itself, if that's possible -- Donaghy's prevalent mode isn't in fact "metaphysical" or formally dextrous. He wrote poem after poem (given his smallish output) in a flatly anecdotal mode. And if we look into a British poetry journal, what do we see? Page after page of flatly anecdotal poems. It drives me nuts. His influence on this trend was clearly significant, and I think it's damaging.

But Katy, do you and your partner really think the artists you listed are "cold"? Wow. Not for me - white hot, all of them.

Hey, Tim. How did you know I had my eye on Brooklyn Bridge? I've been wanting to add it to my collection for years. Trouble is I may not have room. I'll sell off a couple of the others.....

An afterthought. Since my complaint is with an approach rather than any individual, I am more than happy to edit out any parts of my contribution to this thread which are causing personal offence. Engaging in polemic is all very well as long as it does no harm. I had (foolishly) forgotten that the personal investment in Michael Donaghy would be as strong here as it is in the wider world. I had also (even more foolishly, given that Moderators should be attuned to such things) forgotten the extent to which this is a publicly visible forum. Not least of my regrets is that I am bringing into the discussion, without their permission, people who matter to me, and who, while they share my reservations about the status of Donaghy's work, are obviously not speaking for themselves.

Michael never behaved obnoxiously in my presence. He didn't live long enough to become an angry drunk. And Adam, that bridge is yours for the low, low price of 100 million. I'll give you a bill of sale, and you can clear title with the Port Authority.

I just want to add, Adam, that a study of how Michael manages anecdote will reveal a marvelous dramatic sensibility missing from many other poets--I love the way his first lines crack open a scene, the way he plays the scene out. I think this is more than a matter of taste, and is a matter of genuine technical skill. He had a sense of the dramatic arc of a short poem that makes many contemporaries feel leaden in comparison. My essay says more about such things...
Dave

Hi Adam, and let's just say I may be the best-placed on this forum to give a "complete picture." Clearly I don't own the memory, and there were many older, closer friends than me - I'm just the muggins who's going around writing!

Funny to find your remark about the visibility of the forum - the reason I had popped back just now is that my comments are coming up on Google alert, which alarms me slightly. I thought the Google problem had been solved?

As to the "cold" remark, I think the artists listed all do have a coolness - that is, they stand back from the emotion and let the piece work in subtle ways. "White-hot" has a different connotation, which might not be incompatible with "cold" - but I certainly wouldn't call Leonardo or Michelangelo "warm." I love Mozart, but over the years have had conversations with several people who indeed considered him offputtingly cool. Chacun a son gout.

Dave, I'm looking forward to your essay.

Pardon this side comment, and I hope it doesn't sidetrack us. Katy, my understanding of the solution to "the Google problem" is that it extends to the critique forums, not to the discussion forums. Material that writers may later want to submit is being protected, but the thinking is that discussions should be open to all, both regular reader and those who stumble on the discussions by searching, because that's what encourages interest, new members, and active participation.

If that's a surprise, sincere apologies. I truly don't want to hijack this thread, so if anyone has questions, comments, or observations about the searchability of what's on the board, feel free to PM me, start a GT discussion, or gripe on Eratosphericals.

Clearly I need to learn about Google alert!

Hmmm. Being an agent provocateur is all very well, but I prefer to know who I'm provoking. But then caution can make things a bit dull. Oh dear.

I know what you mean about white and red heat, Katy. And there are different varieties of cold. Interesting. And so subjective, as you say.