On Apr 9, 11:50 pm, Fred Hall <
fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 23:38:04 -0400, "Will Dockery"
> <
will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote in <jm09vu$
dq...@dont-email.me>:
>
> >Fred Hall <
fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Thanks for the explanation, but I didn't get the sense PJR was jealous
> >> of anything.
>
> >PJR has a pattern of showing similar jealousy of and for the works (& fame)
> >of quite a few poets who are better poets than he could ever hope to be,
> >right offhand I can remember him demstrating this over Ginsberg, Dickinson,
> >Cohen, Hammes... and now the master poetFerlinghetti.
>
> >So, you may not agree but I have my opinion and you have yours on the
> >matter, obviously.
>
> Yes, we do. But, PJR has always explained the reasons he dislikes
> certain poets.
Oh, sure: He doesn't like Ginsberg because (he says) Ginsberg's a
"turd" and a "pedophile". He doesn't like Dickinson because (he says)
she was "looney" and a "dyke". He doesn't like Whitman, or Poe, or
Longfellow, because all their poems are "crap."
> Constructive criticism.
Just what do you think is "constructive" about any of that?
> Isn't that what these groups
> are for?
No, I don't think the alt. poetry groups are not for dumping on
whomever you dislike. There are plenty of groups -- alt.usenet.kooks,
alt.fucknozzles, and the like -- for that sort of behavior.
> It is not written into the US Constitution that one must bow
> down before the greatness of Ginsberg,Ferlinghetti, or, for that
> matter, Dickinson.
Or immature trolls like ~PJ Ross~, either. So why are you always
kneeling to him?
>(In case you haven't noticed, I despise Dickinson's
> poetry.
I notice you liked at least some Ginsberg, though, until ~PJ~ told you
not to; then you began calling him a pedophile, too. Which, of course,
is what's next for Ferlinghetti, right?
> In college, if I required to write about Dickinson, I
> invariably received a poor grade)
>
Lots of people don't like Dickinson. Perhaps 10% or less of what she
wrote was worth publishing (same as any almost any other poet) - if
her heirs had limited themselves to publishing that 10% or less, she'd
probably have a much better reputation. Unfortunately, for reasons of
historical accident, her every word has been published, and the good
stuff is consequently hard to find. But that's not her fault, and it
doesn't mean the good stuff doesn't exist.
> So, do you dislike Pound?
>
> Discuss
Pound is someone who could have benefitted from the "10% or less" rule
even more than Dickinson. In his case, though, it was his fault, as he
wasn't dead at the time.