I have always found the idea of the book intriguing and felt bad for never having got around to reading it. Given your summary I am glad not to have wasted the hours.
I have always looked at the incarnation of the Goddess in a reverse manner, I feel like the presence of the Goddess in an individual is the multi-vocal part of the feminine--the bit of all women in every woman which in turn makes some of the accusations of monogamy being inherently boring more a matter of lack of sight and perception. I am sure my language here is clumsy and a bit hetero but I don't think the idea behind it is.
As far as the muse goes, I think poets are human as are their muses so Muse with a large M in poems is almost meaningless to me. I do think the poetry that scribbler and muse express in the space between them is up from Under and not theirs as individuals alone. I think gender in either poet or muse is as free as the animal spectrum is.
FWIW.
|