Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:41:56 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 09:56 AM 23/03/02 -0500, Anastasios Kozaitis wrote:
>I wouldn't consider Vikram Seth a very fine poet. The formalism we find in
>Golden Gate gets very tired after awhile. I think what Carlo might be
>saying is if you want to read some imaginative work, why read Seth (the
>neo-formalist) when you can read Pushkin? I mean, Golden Gate is nothing
>more than a bad knock-off? And, Seth even says as much half-way through the
>thing. He tips his hat Onegin-way.
A matter of disagreement I guess. Note that Seth has published a
couple (3?) other slim volumes of poetry, not all of it formal,
some of which I find awfully pleasing. I like the Golden Gate an
awful lot but lots of other people don't. I thought the nod to
Onegin and Johnson's translation was graceful and amusing.
And BTW whereas I like Walcott, there's a point that is
material to the current discussion. Walcott's "Omeros",
(a wonderful book IMHO) is formal in its construction but
has big problems with rhythm - it is hard to read aloud
gracefully to good effect. On the other hand, large parts
of the Cantos read aloud beautifully. So what price
formalism... -Tim
|
|
|