[New-Poetry] Il Miglior Fabbro

[jforjames at aol.com]

Had the?early Moderns absorbed much Dickinson? And the form
they got in her in was normalized from the form in which we know her work.
What did Pound know or think of Dickinson's poetry? I have the impression
her poetry?was known as a kind of a curiosity or novelty at first...not?so
influential on other poets?at the outset. 

Finnegan

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2 at btinternet.com>
Sent: Fri, 23 May 2008 9:58 am
Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Il Miglior Fabbro



This is one of those Irreconcilable Differences ...

?

Dickinson is Dostoevsky to Whitman's Tolstoy.

?

To (to be crude) for some of us, Whitman and Tolstoy both, are rather large lumps of soggy blamange pudding, the Higher Gossip with precious little craft for added value.

?

??? ??? (As an American not unrelated to William James suggested.)

?

Dmitri 4thI

?

From: David Graham 


To: NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News &amp;Views 

Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:40 PM

Subject: [New-Poetry] Il Miglior Fabbro




Hard to think of any yardstick by which Whitman is not the father of American poetry--in terms of scope, craft, theme, diction, ambition, influence on later poets, 

?

??? ??? Longfellow, anyone?




_______________________________________________
New-Poetry mailing list
New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20080523/1b929c89/attachment.html