A blurb I remember reading 40 years ago by Robert Lowell on a book of poems by a female poet noted that what was really good about it was that it was poetry and not just the usual verse. Having no money to speak of at the time, I didn't buy the book and don't remember the writer. Would love to know now her name.

Ken A

On 6/7/2012 12:02 PM, David Boyd wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
A review  in 1946 of 'Recent Poetry' by Robert Lowell in The Sewanee Review comes vividly to mind in the context of criticism of poetry. It begins thus

The eighteen books reviewed here can be roughly divided into three categories : the hopelessly untalented, the unsuccessful, and the realized. Such a classification is convenient but not entirely accurate. The unsuccessful range from poems by men of just a little ability who probably are doing about the best they can to botched poems of considerable promise. The good books are of very unequal distinction, and all include much that is worthless. They would have been much stronger if they had been cut in half, for good poetry is rare and no

one writes often at even his second best. The hopelessly bad books need not be analyzed. I have nothing to say about the absurd phony-Lindsay clatter of Mr. Alan Baer Rothenberg, the ungrammatical pilfering of Mr. George J. Cox, the slick and sounding oratory of Mr. Carl Carmer or the harmless devotions of Mr. Loyd Haberly. A few quotations would ruin these writers more effectively than any criticism, but I see no excuse for the exposure......