There does seem to be a consensus here about Merrill's faults or deficits. Taste is always at least half subjective and personal, but of course it's necessary to try to explain why one prefers or admires a particular artist or style over another. In the case of Merrill, I can understand how he might be accused of being aloof--due in part to some of the same qualities I admire, such as the syntax and diction. Much of his poetry requires a few readings just to get the fundamental sense, but I've found the process entirely effective. His style is similar to that of Henry James' prose (and I'm sure there are many here who dislike that as well), which requires a suspension of the understanding until the entire sentence or passage has been assimilated.
As for density, it is admittedly too narrow to encompass the whole of poetry, but I believe strongly that the langauge of poetry is not the language of ordinary, daily life, the "real" language used by men on the street. It's difficult to formulate this without ruffling feathers, and I'm not about to claim I've figured it all out.
|