From: Ruth I Gordon <druthgo>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:03:02 -0800

Megan Schliesman's most recent comments on poetry are true only to a limited extent. What do we (I) mean by "poetry"? Doggerel of which there are endless supplies in books for children or--well, what do we mean by
"poetry"?

Here's a new thread--and I still believe that the "good stuff" doesn't need obscene interpretative "art", except for subtle design (Babbitt & Worth).

And..I still feel pity for the woman who couldn't understand the deep silence, darkness, and snow of Frost's "Stopping By..."

And..I will remind some of my fellow anthologists--if the stuff is strong enough to stand alone, it would not need to be carried by "art"--and that includes faux-poesie that could not see the light of print without overbearing illustration.

I just had wretched experience. My middle niece wanted to know what books she should buy to introduce poetry to her 3-year-old (well, maybe an almost 4-year-old) and she was about to buy Jeffers' "Stomping on Robert Frost." I used a feelthie word or two in my response and advised my usual--sing to him, hold im on the lap, read and chant Mother Goose, etc., etc. ...and a good deal more about letting the little guy grow up, etc., etc. I also advised that she quest advice from a librarian in service to children--one of my choosing, of course.

Fancy that, a sharer of my genes wanting to purchase an obscenity for her child, one of my great-nephews. Gadzookium--blood of my blood, bone of my bone.

Oh--the shame.

Big Grandma
(and professional aunt and great aunt)


"You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty." Jessica Mitford (191796)
Received on Tue 29 Apr 2003 09:03:02 PM CDT