[Michael F]

First, let me say how glad I am that this thread is becoming what I hoped it would – a very interesting discussion of Stevens. Clive, and Gregory, and Gregory, thank you for participating. I have already profited greatly from this discussion.

Clive – lovely poem, indeed. Love poem? You did not say this, but I suspect this is why you posted it; I hope I’m not making an ass of myself by assumption. Anyway, I view it more about the summer day than the woman: “the woman in sunshine” can mean the female or feminine attributes inhering in sunshine, or better said, the way WS is poetically experiencing the sunshine. He likens the balmy sunshine and breeze to a woman in typically Stevens-ish ‘bawdy’ or sensual language. The woman is nameless, and not even addressed directly. And her love is indifferent? That's something of a strange thing to say. The sunshine is indifferent, we probably agree. I read it more as a poem of Stevens’s aesthetic delight in, and desire for the world, and in this case, specifically, the sun on a balmy day. Compare this to the love poems of Auden, which are so personal. Or Yeats, with his love of "the pilgrim soul in you". IMO, we remain in the realm of the senses and the aesthetic. I may be misreading, I readily admit. It is a pastime of mine. But I do sense a big difference.

Gregory P – yes, I linked to “Peter Quince” in one of my previous posts. I like it, too. If I call you Greg, will you call me Mike, or Michael? 'Mr Ferris'? Lord ha' mercy!

Gregory D – IIRC, Jarrell also comments on Stevens’s parodying of other poets, including Whitman. I can’t recall if it is with reference to “The Comedian”, but it may well be. But we agree in general on the nature of the language; I rather less charitably called it ‘garish’. I have less patience with it, for two reasons: to me, it is like honey, and as Shakespeare said, a little more than a little is much too much. But more importantly, parodying or borrowing from previous poets, and using rare and foreign words and the like makes this poem still more a poem that is really only for other poets or critics of poetry; ‘inside’ jokes, and the bow-tied philosopher’s development of his aesthetic theory, constrict the universe of people who can appreciate it to a small one, indeed. Adrian Mitchell once said “most people ignore poetry because poetry ignores most people.” I feel that way about this poem. But as I remarked to Bill, it’s a difference of taste, a difference in desire for what I want poetry to do. I do recall – and I should have said this before to Bill – marking the first 9 lines he quoted in his post as among the most beautiful in the poem. I respect Bill’s opinion, and yours.

I appreciate the exchange of views. I am wrestling with Wallace as honestly as I know how.

Keep romping…