[David Rosenthal]

Rick,

Congrats on all the upcoming stuff. Great works get negative reviews from some reviewers, as I am sure you know. Soutine is a great work.

David R.

[Charlotte Innes]

Hey Rick, not mawkish! A good bag--boast away! I'm curious about the Soutine review... Meanwhile, check this out by X. (I was looking for the track "What's Wrong with Me," but it doesn't appear to be on YouTube. And this one has a better message!)

Charlotte

[Siham Karami]

Huge congrats, Rick, on all those acceptances, and on your wonderfully-titled new book! Quoting from a comment I read elsewhere on the sphere, A.E. Stallings once said "all ink is good ink," referring to "bad reviews," which, when one has "arrived," go with the territory. Rejoice that they considered you a force to be reckoned with, even if the reckoning doesn't gush. Critics, on some level, feel almost an obligation to find something wrong. In their reverse world, that's the only way to get a little respect. The author is presumed to have that already – otherwise they wouldn't bother.

To your force field!
Siham

[Rory Waterman]

Originally Posted by Siham Karami

Critics, on some level, feel almost an obligation to find something wrong. In their reverse world, that's the only way to get a little respect.

I rather like Rick Mullen's book; but like Rick I also respect Dawn Potter, our reviewer of this collection - who happens to be a wonderful poet in her own right. I don't know what this 'reverse world' is, but she doesn't belong to it. The trouble with modern poetry reviewing is that almost everyone is busy saying that everything is wonderful all the time regardless of whatever they might really think. An insightful reviewer prepared to raise questions, politely and intelligently and without having an agenda, is a rarity to be valued. Poetry isn't an art on life support. Your comment is rather insulting to the thoughtful people who do not want it on life support, who regard it as healthy enough to withstand a wee tug every now and then, who write about it because they care enough to do so and who regard themselves as having a duty to the reader and the book, not to either of the authors. Such reviewers want to praise, and when they do you can be sure they mean it. Your comment also fails to note that - for what it is worth - most of the critics and reviewers of modern poetry are themselves poets. Any poet-reviewer who is prepared to be anything other than full of praise risks revenge reviews now and again in this often rather bloody foolish little poetry world. Those happen.

Moreover, in his modesty Rick slightly overstates the negativity of Potter's review. It is in many ways quite praising and full of admiration - for the poet if not for this particular book. She seems to think he is worth knowing about, and her opinion is worth listening to.

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Post the review.

Please?

[Rory Waterman]

Andrew,

www.newwalkmagazine.bigcartel.com. Issue 7. There are many other reasons to order the issue - and yes, I would say that!

[Carol Trese]

Originally Posted by Charlotte Innes

Hey Rick, not mawkish! A good bag--boast away! I'm curious about the Soutine review... Meanwhile, check this out by X. (I was looking for the track "What's Wrong with Me," but it doesn't appear to be on YouTube. And this one has a better message!)

Charlotte

Great tune, Charlotte. Sounds like the Tom Tom Club, a bit.

Rick, I loved Soutine and I have shared it. Looking forward to your new book!

[Janice D. Soderling]

Speaking solely as one who wishes to be considered "a poet", I am grateful to study what reviewers regard as negative aspects in a good (or bad) volume. I may or may not agree, depending on the book, the reviewer or the vehicle publishing it. But only a "critical" review that looks for and mentions the the good, the bad and the ugly is worth respect. I'm happy when friends get good reviews, I'm happy when the reviewer's opinion happens to coincide with mine, but where we (speaking for we poets not we author) learn most is not from buddy reviews on Amazon.

BTW, another good issue from NW.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Rick Mullin

Thanks for reading this mawkishly padded list, friends. I'm trying to convince myself I'm still in the game (I got the wind knocked out of me at New Walk, which reviewed Soutine).

Rick,

Best not to worry about such things. I've always liked Vadim Vadimovich's attitude in Look At The Harlequins:

"
GERRY Do you ever see this paper, Vadim (accenting "Vadim" incorrectly on the first syllable)? Mister (naming a particularly lively criticule) has demolished your Olga (my novel about the professors; it had come out only now in the British edition).

VADIM May I give you a drink? We'll toast him and roast him.

GERRY Yet he's right, you know. It is your worst book. Chute complete, says the man. Knows French, too.

LOUISE No drinks. We've got to rush home. Now heave out of that chair. Try again. Take your glasses and paper. There. Au revoir, Vadim. I'll bring you those pills tomorrow morning after I drive him to school."

Of course, much of the hilarity comes from Gerry's naïveté...

Best,

Bill

[R. Nemo Hill]

With all due respect, Rory, I don't find Siham's comment in any way 'insulting'. You make many good points in your response, but Siham's comment from a different perspective is likewise rather perceptive. It's not an either/or issue here--and if we are to take you at your word, the role of a critic can and must also be subjected to the same sort of review as the work of the poet, both positively and negatively observed. There have been many fine writer's throughout history who have been far more scathing about that critical role than Siham has in her gently worded and fascinating characterization of it.

Nemo