Roger, sorry that my critique imputed to you views you don't hold. I should've stuck to my first point: I just think it's wrong, as a matter of literary analysis, to think the poem is message-y. The rest was overkill, and uncharitable.
I wasn't meaning to defend that it's a "thousand-year poem", since I don't understand what that means (and I understand it less now than before Tim's clarifications).
|