He's an English Boy

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> If just said
> that if he were judged by all those who came before him, and think that
that
> is the only fair way to judge a poet, he would be somewhere near the
middle.

McGoo:

I don't agree, again on the grounds that he's MORE than just a poet. While
I'm not about to contend he is the world's greatest poet, he may well be
the world's greatest songwriter...at least to date. And therefore certainly
in the league with Dickinson or any artist considered at the top of their
field.
You might then wish to argue that music is not as important a form of Art,
or experssive a form, but if you did I'd have to disagree even more. Music
has even been around longer than written poetry, and has more meaning to
more people. Always has, alway will. If we're moved by a melody or riff or
the lifting of a voice, this also counts even if the word is only
"Ahhhhhhhhhhh...."

> I would happily argue this one, if I knew anything about Dylan.

If you're serious about poetry, and if you have a PhD in it (or I suspect
English Lit.) you should be, then you need to read/listen to Dylan ASAP.
Stop reading this now and go get BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME (for starters).
If you like metaphors and symbolism, as well as "straight talk," you'll
love Dylan.

> Don't say that anything in our culture is universal.

Well, I didn't you know...I said "rather universal."

> Just because a lot of
> people you know know of Townshend's music, universality is in way the
> truth.

Actually, I grew up in my area as the ONLY Who fan. However, it's not
limited to those who actually hear PT's music, for his influence is far and
wide. Farther and wider than anyone's in Rock music, and as far as I can
tell Rock is more universal than any music which has come before it.

> How?

These three letters could provoke a full digest of words, and even that not
enough to explain it. Suffice it to say that our culture changed
drastically in the `60's, and primarily due to Rock music. Then reread the
above statement.

> I never suggested otherwise, because you are right.  I do think is a
shame,
> however.

I don't. I think we must move on to new forms of expression (IOW, Art). I
think Rock has also long since run its course, for that matter.

> I'm perfectly happy with my poetry, and music.  When I want to hear a
good
> song, I put on The Who, when I want to read good poetry I read Dickinson.

But there is more out there. After all, you haven't even been aware of BOB
DYLAN!

> As I said before, she was not a musician.  But she stands so far above
> Townshend's words, that he has to look up to see her ankles.

Nah. Although we already know if she lifts her dress, he will bite.

> Here is will I get into that aforementioned discussion of emulation.  My
> theory of literary emulation has absolutely nothing to do with
> acknowledgement.

Well, I must grant you that such a theory gives you unlimited grounds to go
where you will...but it also makes it a thin, insubstantial argument.
Without any basis in reality, it means little.

>  In fact, it has little to do with knowledge of emulation.

I won't argue that.

> you have read that was written in this century, will have one major thing
in
> common.  The characters in modern literature talk the way normal people
do.

You'd have to prove to me that this wasn't the case before Clemens, who BTW
is one of MY favorite authors. Thinking about it, I seem to recall Dickens'
work has the characters talking the way normal people did when it was
written...just off the top of my head.

> I am no more wrapped up in Dickinson than you are in Townshend.  Not
> everything is rock 'n roll, you know.

Ah, there you're way off track. I could bring my other "areas of expertise"
into the discussion but A) It's long enough as is, B) they have no bearing
on Art/poetry, other than perhaps having inspired some, or are completely
different forms of Art.

> Conformity is no fun.

And it's such a bore, too. Why not just dump it?

> It was just a quote that has a similar meaning to "I'm Free."

Not from what I get out of I'm Free. Are you SURE you understand the song?
The line *I* quoted is one of Townshend's more important observations: When
people are shown the truth, they tend to reject it and cling to convention.
Townshend, by making people aware of this, points the way to more freedom
of thought and action, for as our awareness grows so should we. Does
Dickinson enlighten? Townshend does...
"Freedom tastes of reality" is no piker, for that matter.

> handle this poem too.  But I must warn you, it is far deeper than any
> Townshend song I have ever heard.

I have yet to see you comment on Townshend's ability (and Dickinson's
apparent lack of said ability) to work with different forms of poetry, as I
mentioned in my last note to you. And, having read the poem, I find that
while it's a bit clever...I don't see it as genius. Tolkein wrote better
stuff than that. I'd have to say this next bit is deeper IMHO:

"It may be warm/But the snow is going to fall/Enough to cover us all..."

Rather metaphoric, wouldn't you say? And THAT from a song they "threw
away."

                                       Cheers                              
      ML