[W T Clark]

His technique is fine, there is no question of that. But its fineness rests in a very small, enclosed field of technique that for me is limiting more than sublime. It's a style (not a sentiment, or an outlook) that throws out more than it takes in; again, language is nothing but a tool for Larkin, and I want it to be so much more.

[Mark McDonnell]

"a very small, enclosed field of technique that for me is limiting more than sublime"

"It's a style...that throws out more than it takes in"

"language is nothing but a tool for Larkin and I want it to be so much more"

It's hard to argue with someone who's being so vague.

[Shaun J. Russell]

For a thread that started off about an April Fool's joke, this has certainly devolved into a poor man's "Musing on Mastery" thread.

You can like Larkin, or you can not like Larkin, but I simply don't understand the need to truss those opinions up in quasi-sophisticated justifications. No one says anyone has to like a particular poet (author, musician, artist etc.), but that like or dislike doesn't have to be reasoned out at length. It's tedious, unproductive, and frankly a little tawdry at this point.

[Mark McDonnell]

Probably wise words, Shaun. And my last post was a little snippy, Cameron. Sorry about that. Tedious, unproductive and tawdry are a pretty good description of my Easter Monday afternoon so far. No need to bring it to the Sphere.

Time to go for that walk.

[W T Clark]

Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell

Probably wise words, Shaun. And my last post was a little snippy, Cameron. Sorry about that. Tedious, unproductive and tawdry are a pretty good description of my Easter Monday afternoon so far. No need to bring it to the Sphere.

Time to go for that walk.

Mark, aesthetic disagreement is just that; no offense taken. I'm sorry about your Easter Monday, I hope the rest of the week picks up for you.

[Mark McDonnell]

Oh, it's been OK really. It was more of a joke. Right. Off to swagger the nut strewn roads!

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Originally Posted by E. Shaun Russell

For a thread that started off about an April Fool's joke, this has certainly devolved into a poor man's "Musing on Mastery" thread.

You can like Larkin, or you can not like Larkin, but I simply don't understand the need to truss those opinions up in quasi-sophisticated justifications. No one says anyone has to like a particular poet (author, musician, artist etc.), but that like or dislike doesn't have to be reasoned out at length. It's tedious, unproductive, and frankly a little tawdry at this point.

Stuff it, Russell. No truss here. Thought out, defendable opinions, deeply felt. Minority for sure but eat it. Tawdry? Dude, run along or express the opposite but don't dress up like daddy and dismiss the game. Almost everyone on here gushes over Larkin. He will be ok and dead.

[Matt Q]

Hi Andrew,

I'd be interested to hear more about your idea of poetry as a spell which you mention upthread in relation to Larkin You mentioned it before, commenting one of my bleaker poems.

Is it that you believe that writing about misery/miserable things is a bad idea, that it leads to one becoming more miserable and hence is to be avoided? And if so, is it just the writing of it or also the reading of it that you think is harmful? Or have I massively oversimplified?

best,

Matt

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Running to work now, Matt. But just to be clear, although my idea of what poetry is and should do is related to both the comments you mention I have never discerned what pisses me off about Larkin in any of your work even if that one particular piece wasn't my favorite. It is idiosyncractic, this idea you ask about. Maybe I will PM you to talk about it if you really want to. Wouldn't interest most.

[David Callin]

Going off on a tangent mentioned earlier, I have read some Vahni Capildeo - Venus as a Bear, specifically. My off-hand recollection now: it's pretty good.

I might go back and stress-test that recollection.