Hi Dave! Great to see you here.
John, that is a truly splendid post. Thanks. I especially loved "one doesn’t need to get into all this woo-woo to appreciate Donaghy"... You've hit it on the head though, and of course I didn;t mean "pull it off" as in for the sake of it.
We had a VERY interesting discussion last night over "Interviews." Well, I liked it because I never tire of this one. Accessibility and what the poet's allowed to allude to, etc. Oh, I think I said this last night. Well, it's obviously the same for "Palm," which I have also always loved, though I think everything I know about Paul de Man I learned from this poem, and you.
That quote about the vivisection is one of my all-time favourites; but lately I've got overload-related memory loss and can barely remember my own name, so thanks for quoting it. And that theory-vs-practice (or what one friend recently referred to, in a private email (!) as "praxis") debate encapsulates what Michael so loathed and feared about the academic or postmodern oor experimental or innovative or post-innovative poetry world. The fact that its generative impulse seemed to come from somewhere besides the joy of the poetry. But he understood joy, so I don't think he was closed off to anything on principle. Always open to it.
What the students immediately said on reading "Caliban's Books" (Bear with me. I'm trying to conjure my father...") is how he's coming out of the poem to directly speak to you, the reader. They loved it: they felt really addressed. It was wonderful to read these poems with people.
This is another mishmash of a post, after that beautiful little essay! I'll have more time tonight. I'll see if someone, anyone, can send me that Astrea Williams poem; I'm gutted not to have it.
|