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