[nyctom]

How much credibility does he have to accumulate as a poet before we decide he can't have made a mistake and that the poem must therefore be better than it seems?

Carol I am not even going to touch the rest of your questions, though I am very much looking forward to reading the answers. But this question posted above particularly bothered me.

When I went to see the Vermeer exhibit at the Met, I went with a friend of mine who is a painter. We were looking at V's painting of Christ and Mary and Martha and he said to me, "The hands are terrible. They look like big chubby formless masses." I completely agreed. Someone also looking at the painting heard me agreeing and said, "But it's a Vermeer!" as if that made up for the fact the hands were badly painted (well, I love Vermeer, so I guess to some extent it does. LOL. Still, those later paintings show how he started off not in control of his technique).

At the same exhibit, all of these wonderful paintings of church interiors with the most unbelievably perfect perspective were completely ignored, while you could barely get a gander at the V's.

It's this designer label mentality that I find disturbing Carol. Why should there be two standards for judging a poem based on the reputation (or lack thereof) of a poet? The poem, I think, should outweigh the poet.

I may be missing your point, but it did bother me. Though, as I said, I look forward to others answering your questions. I think they are important to ask.



[This message has been edited by nyctom (edited October 01, 2001).]