Quote:
Originally posted by David Mason:
3. To advance the careers (or increase the visibility) of poets they admire and raise questions about poet they do not admire, who have perhaps been overpraised in the past.
|
I agree with both parts of this, and glad David brought it up. To this I might add a corollary: 3.a. To increase the visibility of a group of related (in the broadest sense) poets who are unjustly neglected.
I like the idea about raising questions, which I feel is necessary, but I want to ask: Is it possible to be too "negative?" William Logan clearly comes to mind. I must admit, I do get perverse pleasure from his criticism (I say that now with the knowledge that I'm in no danger of being Logunned in the near future), and when he does praise someone, his praise is really worth something. But I can't disagree with those who feel he goes too far, arguably to the point that his reviews become vehicles for displaying his wit and erudition rather than thoughtful examinations of a poet's work.
Arguments against negative reviews I've heard include: Life is short, and there are works we shouldn't waste time on; It's better to build [the first part of 3 above] than to destroy [the second part of 3 above]; Better to expend the energy on one's own poetry; etc. I don't think these are invalid arguments, but what do people think?