Primary Values

5 Comments

  1. Joseph Hutchison
    Joseph Hutchison February 25, 2010 at 5:23 am .

    James, it seems you've deleted your comment, but I wish you hadn't, and I hope you'll forgive me for quoting from it: "isn't it completely possible that garner has his own [conclusions about the purpose of poetry]? and that for him, pleasure isn't neccesarily commensurate with, say, disturbance? there are writers so disturbing they're almost dangerous to engage: celan

  2. J.H. Stotts
    J.H. Stotts February 25, 2010 at 1:15 am .

    joe,<br /><br />you may have come to your conclusions about the purpose of poetry, but isn&#39;t it completely possible that garner has his own? and that for him, pleasure isn&#39;t neccesarily commensurate with, say, disturbance? there are writers so disturbing they&#39;re almost dangerous to engage: celan, hugo, rimbaud, ted hughes (and mrs. ted hughes), and a thousand more. ultimately, you

  3. J.H. Stotts
    J.H. Stotts February 25, 2010 at 1:14 am .

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. William Michaelian
    William Michaelian February 21, 2010 at 2:14 pm .

    “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

  5. Lyle Daggett
    Lyle Daggett February 21, 2010 at 2:28 am .

    I notice that the phrase you&#39;ve quoted here says that there are few poets who deliver more <i>pure</i> pleasure etc. So apparently it&#39;s not just the amount of pleasure that&#39;s in question, but the purity of it.<br /><br />Apparently there might be any number of poets who deliver more pleasure than Tony Hoagland, but in all but a few cases, the pleasure they deliver is impure.<br /><br

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: