I am more with Roger than with the rest here: If we are to see why good poetry is good, we should try to crit it. We should not merely state our approval, since such practice makes us mere echoes of the less critical poetry boards' cries of "Oooh! Definately know what you mean! I've felt the same! Love you're piece!" - only at a higher level of poetry.
Sure, the poem is great. But aren't we here to ask why? - and also to point out what might have prevented it from being even greater? Isn't that the reason Dick Davis was invited?
So, let's toss our crits and nits at batsman Davis, and see how we fare. Mine:
The poem uses the rather generic "things" twice, in L6 and in L14. This disturbed me.
And like Roger, I didn't understand L8.
------------------
Svein Olav
|