8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Lucid, comprehensive, deeply insightful, October 30, 2006
This review is from: Poetry as Persuasion (The Life of Poetry: Poets on Their Art and Craft) (Paperback)
This collection of essays by one of our best poets focuses in depth and in particular on the way a poetic speaker builds a relationship with the reader; by shifts of tone and by including counter-evidence, by testing one's own assertions, etc-- Dennis says-- among many other things-- that the poet must build an ethical presence. But there are many many ways to build the presence of this speaker, this poetic relationship. His arguments are really quite brilliant, his readings of poems are terrifically insightful but never laborious, his examples are wide ranging, and the themes of various chapters are incisive and distinct. More than anything though, Dennis's mind seems shockingly clear and well-organized. I don't know of any book of essays about the making of poems which is so clearly, unpretentiously presented, and yet has so much to teach. For the experienced, so called "professional", or for the beginning student of pem-making, this book can be enabling and profoundly useful. A real joy to read and learn from. Dennis 's introduction, in which he sketches out the classical rhetorical frameworks of poetry, is worth the price of the book. Read it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Two stars -- one for effort, the other for, May 30, 2010
This review is from: Poetry as Persuasion (The Life of Poetry: Poets on Their Art and Craft) (Paperback)
obviously not being embarrassed.
This book proves a common discovery: that most poets can't write prose to save their lives. Or that respects the language. So instead they produce the unreadable.
It appears that the author didn't have to deal with an editor, and it shows: irrationality and incoherence abound (those arguably an essence of and acceptable in poetry). And that he doesn't know that writing is RE-writing, therefore he failed to sufficiently digest, through RE-writes, what he wanted to say, in order to arrive at a point at which HE understood what he wanted to say. And the lack of distance and objectivity which results from the insufficient digestion of insufficient rewrite -- shows as a prose that appears so wholly fascinated with and aborbed in its own navel -- in effort to figure out what it is and means -- that it is unaware there's a reader present and watching.
This needs BOTH an editor, and rewriting. Until that happens it is so much a chore to read that one must often reread one or another nonsensically convoluted sentence in effort to get the point hidden somewhere amid the polysyllabic effluvia. Academics, and especially semi-academics, need to learn and apply a basic rule: reading a book should be a pleasure, not a chore which exhausts for all the wrong reasons.
An editor and a rewrite -- or three -- would likely eliminate the unreadable and as result reduce the thickness of the thing by roughly 1/4". As it is the effort to read this is an unnecessary, off-putting struggle.
I emailed the publisher with the above concerns, though not as sharply stated. No response. Apparently the editor, if there is one, was then -- and continues to be -- out to lunch.
All in all, stick with writers about poetry who sufficiently digest, through rewrites, that they intend to say to understand it themselves -- instead of inflicting the indeterminately-semi-baked onto the hapless reader.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No