Ratings3
Average rating4
Picked up in place of a more instructive book on the same subject, this brief criticism (more an exploration, albeit with sharp edges) felt unique and playful throughout, with a pace just quick enough to keep me turning the page, but not so much as to let me pass through without the pang of regret for want of a nice pencil or, at the least, a highlighter.
Probably the best exploration of poetry I've read, and I'm still debating whether the parts that bothered me should or not... or if I even care.
The main argument is that we hate poetry because it doesn't match up with a platonic ideal of what poetry could be, or could do. Sometimes tho, I have no idea what poetry is trying to do so I'm glad to read someone else talk about it. I was also glad when Lerner, in talking about the desire for poetry to be both individual + universal, points out the bias of one critic in assuming only white men can really speak for everyone and that no men could relate to Sylvia Plath's “Daddy” or example.
very interesting! the narrow column format made it a bit annoying to read as an essay tho