Ranger21 Sep 2006

Well okay, the poet has two categories of experience, and emphasises the unusual more than the usual. Fair enough, and rightly so. But this is a poem - and therefore it needs to be presented in an effective way. It made little impact on me and, it appears, little impact on the first two readers as well. I like the message, I think it needs to be said as often as possible, but my gripe is that it's been said in a way which left no impression on me (remember, this is simply my view - not a universal by any means). I believe this could have been done better, and I think if the poet wants to experiment with it, he/she will find that it achieves different reactions.

It's about the poet's perspective? That's debatable. After all, any text can be interpreted in a multitude of ways - the longer the piece, the more variations in interpretation (see Empson's rather compelling interpretation of Paradise Lost). Once a piece of literature leaves the author's quill it becomes public property. Any interpretation which logically and consistently holds up must be valid. What authority does the author have to say how a text should or should not be read?

--am I right in thinking that the quote means that people produce better work when praised rather than criticised? I'm not sure I agree with it...I probably sound like an argumentative sod, believe me that I'm just interested to find out other peoples' views :-)