This illuminates your decisions and is helpful in understanding your choices; I have been reading Moore for decades and the edition I first read was hers of 1967; clearly it wasn’t satisfactory in many ways and I found wherever I could other versions, often thornier and even more difficult than the 1967 edition. Eventually I came to think she had seriously misrepresented her poetry- verse, she would have said- and that the original versions were superior.
What a disappointment this was, it hurt to watch. Why bother present poetry if you have neither the passion, spirit or heart for it? One could at least do the work and compensate for a lack of passion with cognitive power or expertise - which is clearly not the case here. This is just a lackluster misrepresentation of an influential and great poet, ... leeching of somebody's name while just taking away and not providing anything. The most important and basic ideas of the author or modernism haven't been touched on, the presenter hasn't even bothered to think about what poetry is or can be clearly. She would prefer to just put everything into practical labeled boxes to ensure never to broaden anybody's horizon. But then claim this is the new standard collection for Moore's poetry right at the start? What exactly is happening here?
What nonsense are you blathering about? Dr. White's presentation was on point for anyone who wants to consider Moore's poetry through an editor's eyes. You haven't even bothered to think about what you're trying to say. How to you come to think she has no passion? Go back into your cave, ya troll.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
wonderful introduction to the poetry of Marianne Moore - and thoughtful discussion afterwards-thank you
This illuminates your decisions and is helpful in understanding your choices; I have been reading Moore for decades and the edition I first read was hers of 1967; clearly it wasn’t satisfactory in many ways and I found wherever I could other versions, often thornier and even more difficult than the 1967 edition. Eventually I came to think she had seriously misrepresented her poetry- verse, she would have said- and that the original versions were superior.
What a disappointment this was, it hurt to watch. Why bother present poetry if you have neither the passion, spirit or heart for it? One could at least do the work and compensate for a lack of passion with cognitive power or expertise - which is clearly not the case here. This is just a lackluster misrepresentation of an influential and great poet, ... leeching of somebody's name while just taking away and not providing anything. The most important and basic ideas of the author or modernism haven't been touched on, the presenter hasn't even bothered to think about what poetry is or can be clearly. She would prefer to just put everything into practical labeled boxes to ensure never to broaden anybody's horizon. But then claim this is the new standard collection for Moore's poetry right at the start? What exactly is happening here?
What nonsense are you blathering about? Dr. White's presentation was on point for anyone who wants to consider Moore's poetry through an editor's eyes. You haven't even bothered to think about what you're trying to say. How to you come to think she has no passion? Go back into your cave, ya troll.