I will go out on a limb to say that we adults who do find value in Donaghy's work probably don't do so because we're crazy, or crippled by bad taste, or dazzled by some flim-flam persona, or hopelessly ensorcelled by the poet's personal charm. Ruling out those possibilities, just for the sake of argument, I wonder if there are any other ways to explain affection for this poet . . .
But in any event, Philip, your fighting words aside, I get that this poet isn't for you. Fair enough. And history may even prove you right about the superficiality of his charms and the profoundly minor quality of his work.
Then again, it might not. In any event, no one here is a neutral third-party arbitrator of what's Good and Right in poetry (because no such thing exists). So why don't we try to have a more interesting conversation than the one about who's bestest and who's worser?
These Donaghy threads frequently devolve into the poet's admirers rhapsodizing, until the poet's detractors just can't stand all the glowy encomia any longer and decide to take the man down a peg. Again - why don't we try a different conversation?
I'm squarely pro-Donaghy. I'll just say it: he's my "favorite poet" (odious phrase). But I don't hold any illusions about his being somehow "perfect" - as if there was any way to meaningfully measure perfection in art. I'm interested to hear where he falls short for readers, the ways that some readers (including several I know of and whom I deeply respect) find themselves resisting the work. It's a little bit like finding out that someone doesn't like your favorite flavor of ice cream, and, in the grand scheme of the universe, about as important. In any event, there's an interesting way to have that conversation.
I wonder if we'll have it.
|