Re: OT (sets and stuff)
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:20:54 GMT
Message-ID: <Wmkyh.3505$R71.54026_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>
> Not a big fan of Eliot, actually, although one must acknowledge that
> the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is a work of unbridled genius.
> Yes,
> I'm an American (I was tempted to say "no, I'm a Californian") but I
> can't seem to get in to American poetry. The USA has produced
> some great literature: we have Hemingway and Fitzgerald and Faulkner,
> and dammit Raymond Chandler. And I'll claim the Transcendentalists
> will hold up creditably against any group of English philosophers.
>
> But American poetry? Who you gonna hold up? We can nod in the
> direction of Longfellow, and Edna St. Vincent Millay, and Robert
> Pinsky
> even. Steven Vincent Benet? His prose is better. Or consider Thoreau.
> He wrote a book that I believe will still be considered one of the
> greatest works of the English language centuries hence. His poetry?
> It's kind of painful, like when you favorite actor records an album,
> or when Steven King appears in his TV adaptations. Okay, so
> Gil Scott-Heron can sling some verse. Sure.
>
> But English poetry? Oh. My. God. We'd be lucky to have someone
> like Robert Southey playing for our team, but over there all they
> remember him for is that Byron made fun of him. England has
> a great poet like Shelley and his wife writes a novel everyone
> has heard about close to two centuries later. You can't turn
> a spade at Westminister without disturbing more poetic talent
> than I can claim for my country.
>
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. A rat done bit my sister Nell
> PPS. I'm now officially the literary poseur of the data management
> field.
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:20:54 GMT
Message-ID: <Wmkyh.3505$R71.54026_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
> On Feb 6, 4:38 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>
>>Marshall wrote: >> >> >>>Hope springs eternal in the human breast; >>>Man never Is, but always To be Blest. >> >>Marshall, I gather you're American, how come you're not quoting your >>mostly absent countryman, TS Eliot, who with his black precision stamped >>paid on Pope's pastoral view, something like "when there is distress of >>nations ... men's curiousity searches past and future and clings to that >> dimension"?
>
>
> Not a big fan of Eliot, actually, although one must acknowledge that
> the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is a work of unbridled genius.
> Yes,
> I'm an American (I was tempted to say "no, I'm a Californian") but I
> can't seem to get in to American poetry. The USA has produced
> some great literature: we have Hemingway and Fitzgerald and Faulkner,
> and dammit Raymond Chandler. And I'll claim the Transcendentalists
> will hold up creditably against any group of English philosophers.
>
> But American poetry? Who you gonna hold up? We can nod in the
> direction of Longfellow, and Edna St. Vincent Millay, and Robert
> Pinsky
> even. Steven Vincent Benet? His prose is better. Or consider Thoreau.
> He wrote a book that I believe will still be considered one of the
> greatest works of the English language centuries hence. His poetry?
> It's kind of painful, like when you favorite actor records an album,
> or when Steven King appears in his TV adaptations. Okay, so
> Gil Scott-Heron can sling some verse. Sure.
>
> But English poetry? Oh. My. God. We'd be lucky to have someone
> like Robert Southey playing for our team, but over there all they
> remember him for is that Byron made fun of him. England has
> a great poet like Shelley and his wife writes a novel everyone
> has heard about close to two centuries later. You can't turn
> a spade at Westminister without disturbing more poetic talent
> than I can claim for my country.
>
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. A rat done bit my sister Nell
> PPS. I'm now officially the literary poseur of the data management
> field.
Dude, America put the Poe in poetry. Received on Wed Feb 07 2007 - 14:20:54 CET