Quote:
Originally posted by Henry Quince:
Certainly he made verse-music, and certainly he’s open to the charge that there’s sometimes more sound than sense in his lines. But at least there is sound! And when these accusations are made, where are the critics who defend modern obscurity by telling us that we’re misguided when we look for literal meaning? “A poem should not mean, but be.” Why isn’t that a justification for Swinburne, too, in passages where he seems to be “sound-driven”?
|
Henry,
I am one of those who thinks that if a poem doesn't "be" I don't give tuppence what it "means" and I also believe that the "be"
is what it means. And not just poetry. All art.
Janet