tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24406196.post1921514968412036159..comments2024-03-22T03:31:03.398-04:00Comments on serif of nottingblog: FOR JAMES TATE, OR MAYBE, THE NEW POPEgary barwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05063921311334434357noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24406196.post-54177748863725311552013-03-19T12:29:41.436-04:002013-03-19T12:29:41.436-04:00William: thanks so much for this comment (and for ...William: thanks so much for this comment (and for linking on your blog.) I so appreciate it. I'm grateful for your response & analysis. And "No two seagulls ever look alike to me because usually two seagulls are fighting." Amazing. And I'm not allergic to 'beautiful.' Though, at least in my work, I maintain healthy rough-and-tumble relation to the notion. If I want to know what beautiful is, I ask a seagull. And reverse St. Anselmism. Something also to consider. Thanks again! gary barwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063921311334434357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24406196.post-6221843320555521962013-03-17T01:34:32.297-04:002013-03-17T01:34:32.297-04:00This is really beautiful and I like the way you ti...This is really beautiful and I like the way you tied together the idea of the missing (Ff)athers (Tate's Lost Pilot) and the Absence that Dare Not Speak its Name (so stays continually Present). I think that's reverse St. Anselmism. But this is an unexpected poem, unexpected language, unexpected veering, and unexpected afterimage. Sort of like a bird. Which I guess all successful poems are. Sort of like a bird in those ways. No two seagulls ever look alike to me because usually two seagulls are fighting. Like poems do in their much nicer way. I apologize for using the word "beautiful" if you are allergic to it. Many people seem to be these days. But tis tis. Cheers.William Kecklerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09492547054986452311noreply@blogger.com