Jodie,
I think your question is valid, but there are many view points from which to ask the question. In other words,
Logan goes too far, but he serves a much needed purpose, because so much of poetry is fatuous and empty frill, and he says what he thinks. It is always surprising to me how many people, in reviews or not, don't say what they think.
Good poetry stands up to acid baths, but appreciation and enjoyment of poetry is as varied as the subjects and the people writing the poems. So a purpose is also filled by someone like Gioia, who writes much milder appreciation. Did someone here say that Gioia said we need more negative reviewing on poetry? I think so.
A negative review can only be negative if it is wrong. If it is right, it is positive, isn't it? I think your first question is, 'an unflattering review...'
It is hard to take the time to write a negative review. Who wants to bother, but when the Billy Collins' go skipping down the sidewalk playing poetry charades, I'm tempted. But the best defense is to write the best poetry.
So I say, thank goodness for William Logan, who I first heard described as the most hated man in poetry for his 'negative' reviews, which I consider overdone but honest--not necessarily right every single time, but at least he isn't some wormy blurb writer. I will always read his reviews.
Robert Frost said "..don't draw anyone's fire.." in other words, don't be critical of others, it will cost you. It is a good rule, and one hard not to break if you crit in a workshop.
David said above that editors need reviews more than more poems, and that is probably true as it is, but what they really need are lots of better poetry.
I think the pattern I see is, the better the poet the less they criticize, and seldom if ever write negative reviews, if reviews at all.
All in all, I see things balancing themselves out.
TJ
|
Threaded Mode
