I finally got around to reading Richard Yates’ much lauded first novel, Revolutionary Road, and, despite all the hype and blurbery, it was a huge disappointment. No, it was not the sort of patent PoMo garbage that is pushed by the David Foster Wallace or Dave Eggers sort, nor is it the deliterate crap foisted upon readers by T.C. Boyle nor Joyce Carol Oates. In fact, despite stylistic differences and thematic concerns that do not mix, the writer Yates’ book most brought to my mind was the vastly overrated Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison — specifically her unfortunately overpraised novel Beloved. Like that book, Revolutionary Road could have used a good editor to weed through the structural flaws and the melodramatic characters.
Perhaps the biggest connection that hit me with both books is that the main characters and story that both novels focused on were not the best characters and stories in either book. Beloved’s silliness could have been redeemed had the novel focused on the character that was imprisoned in Andersonville, but after creating this great character, Morrison did nothing with him and dropped him to continue on with the banal and tearjerking tale of mother and ghost. One of the first rules a great artist learns and follows is to be willing to recognize and drop something that is not working in favor of something that is, because one can always return to the original failed premise later, and retry. But, sometimes there is only one opportunity to go with something that can lead to greatness. Similarly, Yates failed the same test as Morrison, opting for the cartoon cutout caricatures of the novel’s main couple, Frank and April Wheeler, instead of exploring the vastly more well sketched interior life of the supporting character, Shep Campbell.
This failure to seize the moment, or as Yates and his generation might have melodramatically cheered, ‘Carpe diem!,’ lies at the heart of Yates’ fatal flaw as a writer, in general. When I reviewed Yates’ Selected Stories, I noticed this tendency, too. I wrote, ‘Yates is a very good writer, at his best, which is much better than many short stories from far bigger name writers like Fitzgerald, O’Connor, Faulkner, Salinger, and the like. Yet, he never quite breaches greatness in any of the stories. They lack an X Factor — be it a great end, a tale that works on multiple levels, or a sustained lyric impulse to his descriptions and metaphors. Some critics have cited him as an influence on Raymond Carver, and there is certainly a linkage in the tales, but Carver achieves greatness in quite a sizable number of his tales, because he is daring, and risky. Yates, for all his skill at portraying the yearning nobodies of life, is a safe and steady writer, yet his best lines and tales seep inward like the best of writing does. He has no abominable tales, like Carver does, but his best pales to Carver’s….’
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - will
There are several things that discredit your review (and I mention these merely in the spirit of critique, unless this is intended as a satire of pedantry).
1. Asserting your own "critical acuity" and promoting your writing ability is the single most discrediting thing you could possibly do one a review. And, ironically, extraneous, the type of detail you chide Yates for including, because:
1.) If you are a good writer, it will show up in your body of critique (if not your publishing credits....); and:
2.) An intelligent reader will be able to decide for themselves, upon reading the review, whether you are indeed critically astute. Show, don't tell, remember?
2.) Misunderstanding of theme: the work is meant to be read as a satire, of the people with the: "The suburbs are hell" attitude. He's positing that the American Dream (hence 'Revolutionary Road') has led mediocre people (Frank and April Wheeler) to expect more from life than their mediocrity allows them to achieve. They are actors, poseurs, self-absorbed, hence Yates obsession with their histrionic thoughts and gestures. See: James Joyce, A Portrait of an Artist's obsessions with Stephen Dedalus's obsessions about himself. The characters are satirical cutouts, embodying large swaths of society a la Candide. April Wheeler, the Madame Bovary-esque (box with the horse, anyone?), a product of the lavish 20's--in fact she could be seen as The Blessed Precious from the Great Gatsby. Frank Wheeler, the self-absorbed, entitled pseudo-intellectual. Shep is an entirely comical character, the rich boy trying to be the rough neck, only to realize he is the rich boy. Maureen Grube, the "sexually liberated" woman who is anything but. It goes on and on. Every character is inherently comical (see Jay Gatsby), because all of them are deluding themselves, but Yates, skillfully, cuts away the masks to show their vulnerability. Now it's subtle, and you might miss it, because he SHOWS it.
3.) Making your own textual revisions: bit presumptuous? Sorry, but not everyone can or should write like Raymond Carver. I'm sure you'd have a time with Dickens, or Thackeray, or Dostoevsky, or Joyce, who all include far more DETAIL. You must remember, minimalism is a fairly modern invention. Also, exactly how would having a First Person Narrator help the story? The book is about the interior lives of these characters. Then it really would be melodrama, instead of the rich, detached humor of the Gods.
4.) Failure to view novel outside of own frame of reference: Yates has his faults as a novelist, of course; this is the only book by his I think is worth a damn and I think it's one of the best books from the 20th century; his rest are uneven at best. But to say that you can't empathize or relate with his characters because of the early introduction of the fight is absurd. There is so much rich, subtle characterization, shown, not told, in the first 20 or so pages leading up to the fight--Frank's whole life is sketched to show his misguided view of self; April is shown at her most vulnerable. Their fight is perfectly believable. It was like something out of my childhood between my parents. To say April Wheeler is a disbelievable portrait of the female psyche shows your own limitations in experience: I know several woman just like her, hard but emotionally vulnerable, alternatingly emasculating and commiserating. Richard Yates goes to great pains to paint her portrait, especially through her dialogue and the beautiful flashback scene. I'd be very, very interested to see your portrayal of the female psyche, or your writing for that matter.
OK, that was probably much more than this review warranted. I've read a lot of your reviews on Amazon (you were spot on with his short stories), and I still am a little personally hurt that you dismiss Fitzgerald's impeccable lyricism as "gossamer", so if there's any implicit bitterness it probably stems from that. Anyway, I think you are perceptive and erudite and a much better reviewer than most of the internet variety because you don't seem to get swept in the hype; but some of the pedantry and egotism really makes the good points hard to swallow. And I just don't think you did justice to this book.
2 - will
Correction: another Amazon reviewer, with the same first name, dismissed FSF's lyricism. My apologies. I stand by everything else.
3 - Dan Schneider
Will:
1)You promote an idea based upon 1) a personal preference and idea of 'modesty' and 2) quote a pointless and long debunked cliche- read Wallace Stevens if you need proof.
2) this assertion has no basis in the text and is a typical MFA level misread, wherein blatant failures (i.e.- characterization, dialogue, narrative) are somehow seen as successes because....oh, the author 'intended' this to be bad/puerile/silly, boring, etc. This is known as the intentional fallacy.
So far, 2 points and we have you boostering banalities and arguing w logical fallacies.
3) Good critics do and should suggest improvements for their work. That most do NOT shows why criticism, as an art form, is in almost as bad a shape as fiction. That you do not even get this shows how laughable your whinges are. As for the character's interior lives: they are stereotypes, and by definition they cannot be rich. And stereotypes necessitate melodrama. Keep swinging though.
4) "Their fight is perfectly believable. It was like something out of my childhood between my parents. To say April Wheeler is a disbelievable portrait of the female psyche shows your own limitations in experience: I know several woman just like her, hard but emotionally vulnerable, alternatingly emasculating and commiserating."
You have neatly defined your own failings as a critic as you have allowed your own personal likes and tastes into your review. These are your limitations; and as for your childhood woes. I don't care of them. They have no bearing on the book, and if its flaws help you deal with your psychic trauma; great. For those of us more mature; it does little.
As for criticism; get ready to shudder....I'm the best. Period. Be it poetry, films, fiction, social issues. And I show it. As for pedantry- I'm 180 degrees from it as I innovate in both art and crit. Pedants do not do this; next stop, Webster's for you.
Keep reading.
4 - zingzing
"You have neatly defined your own failings as a critic as you have allowed your own personal likes and tastes into your review."
uh.
"I'm the best. Period. Be it poetry, films, fiction, social issues. And I show it. As for pedantry- I'm 180 degrees from it as I innovate in both art and crit."
ugh.
5 - will
Dan,
1.) A: I have no preference for modesty. It's usually either arrogance backed by self assurance or nothing backed by nothing. I am just going by some however many millennias' worth of rules on human interaction (I'll get to this later; you'll be glad to know I've read up on some of your ideas and dialogue). But if criticism is to be an objective pursuit, and I don't claim to be either, then the critic as an artist should more or less be absent from the critique; his ideals and biases can remain, but of course your own art will be more in line with the ideas and biases--you created it.
B: Sorry you missed the irony. You rip Yates for including things that the intelligent reader should already know (Frank's intent, his body language, etc.) and then you go on to beat us over the head with what should be evident on your text (your critical acuity). You do the very thing you chide Yates for. For the record, I respect your critical opinion (I wouldn't be having this argument otherwise), but you don't present it in a way that will ever lend you credibility.
2.) My assertion has everything to do with the text, and my reading of it. The two, in my view, are inseparable; no two minds get the same thing out of a given work, based on what they've read before (art is a continuum). However, art must also stand alone, I agree. An understanding of one text shouldn't be based entirely on the understanding of another text. And I agree that bad art can result from good intent, but good art cannot result from no intent. And the reader must take the intent into account when deciding the merits of a piece, i.e. if you tried to read Candide or Catch 22 with the idea you were reading historical realism you could argue they failed on that basis.
3.) Agreed. Good critics. But they shouldn't assert their artistic superiority. Then it becomes a matter, of Well, if I had written that.... That you don't get this shows how unreliable your criticism is. Your improvements aren't definitive, you are not THE definitive critic (though I give you a nod over what you read in the NY Times), RE: 'This Old Poem/Keats', where you make unnecessary alterations (to a non-final draft, no less), and judge it higher based on YOUR artistic aesthetics. Cliches and stereotypes aren't anathema to creativity or originality; they are tools. People think, communicate, etc. in terms of cliches and stereotypes; artists use these to manipulate the reader (see: Conrad's 'Children of the Sea') to make a point, an argument, etc. And eliminating cliches from a poem, in favor of stilted, awkward language, does not improve its 'greatness'. Also, you edit Yates entirely in terms of your own aesthetic until it read JUST like Raymond Carver! Not everyone writes like that, nor should they. THAT, is my problem. And you edit poets so they read JUST like you! That's not criticism, that's self promotion.
And you neatly define your own failings as a critic because you are unable to separate you ego from your appraisal of other writers.
4.) You're right. I'm no critic. Nor do I pretend to be. When I write, to paraphrase FSF, I start all inquiries with myself, and I start with an emotion. This may be lesser art, who am I to say? it probably is. But dismissing a character because ~there aren't real women like that~, when there are woman like that is like dismissing a book on Astrophysics because you've never seen an equation like that.
So, go ahead, claim you want "intellectual dialogue" and summarily dismiss any criticism on yourself without addressing a single damn point; just damn the points instead.
Visionary or not, and I'm probably not, great or not, and I'm too young to know yet, canonization, for better or worse, depends as much on the artist as the art. It's always been this way: if the artist doesn't reach a public during their lifetime, the details of their lives have to fit an aesthetic ideal, and they have to have people championing them. I just think it'd be a shame if Internet Archeologists, 1,000 years from now, find your poems, a few of which I thought showed real poetic ability (unfortunately there's the Joyce Carol Oates symptom where there's so much output you can't see the trees for the forest--I only use her in terms of output, not quality)-- and dismiss them based on your own wild appraisal of yourself and your ability. Even if you are as good as you claim, people will see the claims and never see for themselves.
6 - Dan Schneider
Will:
1) the modesty comment was re: your opinion of my stating facts. As Reggie Jackson once said: It ain't bragging if you can back it up. I can. If I state I am great at poetry, writing, criticism, etc., it's because to not state that is pointless. I only state that when called for. To not do so is to be deceitful, and lying is a critical kill. 2) I missed nothing--you typed 'Show, don't tell, remember?' My response was: '1)You promote an idea based upon 1) a personal preference and idea of 'modesty' and 2) quote a pointless and long debunked cliche- read Wallace Stevens if you need proof.' In short, if you are going to try and school someone, you had not fall back upon cliches, and ones that have little bearing on reality. If one can tell, do so and do it well. This notion of showing over telling is MFA idiocy.
2) You wholly avoided my nailing you on the intentional fallacy. yes, readers will subjectively imbue, but the art is objective. Like any other endeavor humans do art has objective measures. As example, having read Yates' major works, incl. his short stories, I can say fully that the man was unfortunately limited by a misanthropic tendency that was in no way attuned to anything humorous, and this book is as humorless as they come. If you want satire, watch Married w Children. I've watched soap operas for 30 years and pro wrestling for 40. That's melodrama and so is this book. It drips with phony situations and reactions. Again, you may LIKE that, but it's not great fiction. But when you try to rationalize your LIKES in objective terms, prepare to be hammered.
3)Criticism is ALWAYS about what is good or bad or better and worst. It is always about ranking this art over that or this trope over that and WHY! Again, that you do not see this shows how utterly criticism has failed in the last few decades. Objectively speaking, as example, Donald Hall is a BAD poet, and Whitman FAR superior. This is objectively true by any measure of poetic quality. You cannot reasonably argue this. You CAN reasonably argue Keats is better than Whit or Maya Angelou is worse than Hall, but there ARE objective measures. That you lack the facility to define and employ these is YOUR limitation, and by claiming elsewise you are again employing a logical fallacy- the fallacy of self-limits. Because I CANNOT benchpress 500 lbs does not mean it cannot be done. As for the Keats TOP, it is objectively better, as explained, but AESTHETICS have nothing to do with it. Aesthetics are subjective, not objective.
"Cliches and stereotypes aren't anathema to creativity or originality; they are tools. People think, communicate, etc. in terms of cliches and stereotypes; artists use these to manipulate the reader (see: Conrad's 'Children of the Sea') to make a point, an argument, etc. And eliminating cliches from a poem, in favor of stilted, awkward language, does not improve its 'greatness'. Also, you edit Yates entirely in terms of your own aesthetic until it read JUST like Raymond Carver! Not everyone writes like that, nor should they. THAT, is my problem. And you edit poets so they read JUST like you! That's not criticism, that's self promotion."
People do think in cliches and cliches can be used creatively to subvert things, but then they .... are NOT cliches any longer. A cliche is a familiar phrase or idea in a familiar setting. Broken heart is a cliche, but if used in a poem on someone literally pierced by a shard from an IED, as example, it can be rehabilitated. And I NEVER make poems like my own writing- that you cannot see that says much. Note how my TOPs almost NEVER add any words or things, I just improve by cutting and editing.
Again, right here, you show you cannot even clearly read poetry w/o inserting YOUR own biases!
Seriously, look at the TOPS- they are CUTS. There is no addition of word choices nor tropes I'd use, and each poem is edited in different ways to make each poem better in the most efficient manner. Also, they are lace with great humor.
So, you have failed as a critics AND a reader.
4) Yet your very posts show you trying to be a critic. It is disingenuopus to now back off. Do you NOT see how this is typical trolling and Internet sciolism? And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, Will, because, underneath that unlearned arrogance I sense an actually good potential mind.
And I have SPECIFICALLY addressed each and every point in your posts. You simply do not like that I have debunked them. Ok, great. So?
As for the future. Quality wins in the end. Always has, always will, because greatness always acquires admirers through each generation. Bad stuff is replaced by each succeeding generation's bad stuff. Dave Eggers is one in a long line of Eggersian writers. He is utterly generic, as is Oates.
However, if you really do want to learn about art, forget this online banter and contact me at my site. With time and patience there's hope yet.
7 - Keith
Out of curiosity, why the sudden outburst of interest in this review, two years after it was posted? Was it posted for discussion on a message board or mailing list somewhere? Usually comments on Dan's reviews start to pile up quite quickly and then taper off over time.
8 - Keith
And for the record, I am a member of the Cosmoetica e-list and do agree with Dan on most of his points. I've read many of his This Old Poem entries, and I've never seen a single poem that he didn't improve or a single poem where he just foisted his own writing style/voice onto a pre-existing poem. Indeed, there are many instances where he says that he could probably, himself, improve a poem further but chooses not to for fear that the voice of the original poet will be lost. Indeed, This Old Poem is, more than its stated goal of rehabilitating known poems, an excellent look into the revision process, which most professors I've ever had have been insanely vague about. The things that he calls out as cliches are, indeed, not the sort of cliches that are being used by the artist to express a certain idea or even to create an aesthetic atmosphere but cliches of the lazy sort: cliches that are there just to be cliches, to give readers something that they emotionally "like" but which show little creativity or craft on the part of the artist. This is an especially egregious thing because, as I once saw Dan's wife point out in an e-mail, twisting a phrase to make it un-cliche is not that hard! Literally, all Dan does most of the time is swap in one word for another, and pretty much every time it constitutes an improvement by giving the poem a more unique overall atmosphere, and given Dan's own poetic skill, it usually ends up syncing with the rest of the poem in unexpected ways as well. Please, point out the stilted language in his Keats TOP; I'd like to know what constitutes stilted for you in order to better answer your argument.
9 - Keith
And finally, though I've not read the novel in question, Dan states EXACTLY how he thinks a first-person narration would have helped the novel in the review by saying that it would have served to make at least one of the characters, and perhaps even both, sympathetic, where from the perspective of an omniscient narrator they come across as quite unlikable. To call Dan a pompous ass (I know that wasn't will specifically, but I intend this comment to generalize outward toward the entire block of responders) and say that he's not addressing your points when several of your answers are located in the original review comes across as rather disingenuous and seems to me to provide proof of Dan's original claim that you merely like the novel but don't have the objective frame of reference to prove that said enjoyment is anything more than a subjective preference.
10 - will
@Dan--I appreciate the in-depth response; there's still some things I don't see eye to eye on, but this is probably due more to my inability & imprecision in my communication of my ideas (I don't have a critical language). You are right about my limitations as an artist and a critic (why I said I wasn't a critical; more accurately I don't have a developed critical facility).
1.) I'm passionate about what I like.
2.) And I like things about which I'm passionate.
Anyway, I'll be in contact via your site. I actually have some work I'd like to get your opinion on if you have time.
@Keith--I just stumbled on this site, then stumbled on the review; and there were aspects about the review I disagreed with, and the reviewer that I was curious about. It was more a venting/cathartic gesture on my are and I was pleasantly suprised to get a response, and other people were unpleasantly affected by the nature of the replies.
11 - Keith
I figured on your part, but I'm wondering who are all of these OTHER people reading the comments section of a two-year-old review. Usually this sort of thing happens when somebody posts something old to a message board or the like.
12 - will
@Keith--
re 1st Person Narrator: To me, and what I was trying to communicate, I felt that having Shep be the 1st person narrator would've undermined the detached, sarcastic tone of the novel. Shep is sentimental and maudlin and incapable of cutting insight (hell, he barely noticed April was pregnant). Unless Yates wanted to go all Faulkner and have seeming morons have sudden Elizabethan poetic insights, then a story told by Shep would be a story about Shep. I thought that the narration was one of the most effective devices Yates uses, a sort of directed 'indirect discourse'. I merely disagreed.
re Other points addressed in review: All the points I brought up were addressed in the review, otherwise I wouldn't have brought them up.... I just felt they weren't addressed adequately (hence my bringing them up).
re This Old Poem/Keats: This is a preliminary draft, first of all, not the definitive version Keats had published, which is the superior version musically and poetically (and eliminates at least one 'cliche'). Now as per issues:
Elimination of repetition: unnecessary, in my opinion. The poem as a whole is lean and concise as is, especially for Keats, and removal of the first stanza merely rushes the poem into action. It's like something the New Yorker would do to fiction: 'Well just cut out the first paragraph so we get into story starts sooner without reference, mood, atmosphere, and intent be damned.' Furthermore, Keats uses the repetition in the opening line and the closing line to bring the poem full circle and the use of deja-vu. It's a journey poem; the knight journeys, he returns. In Scheider's we don't even know where the knight is until the end. His journey is minimized.
Now let's look at the second stanza:
I see a lily on thy brow
With anguish first, even as dew,
And on thy cheeks its fading grows,
Fast with the rest, too.
This is what I mean by stilted; this isn't elegant; anguish first? even as dew? with the rest? What the hell does this mean? Sure Keats gets a little melodramatic here, but the cliches are harmless, they're elegant, and Fred the fifth grader can figure out what they mean. Schneider's version doesn't create a picture in my head, except anguish first makes it seems like the knight is having an unpleasant experience upon seeing the narrator.
Third Stanza: This isn't terrible; 'defiled' fits in with the meaning of the poem, yes, but ONLY in retrospect. But the poem's strength is its initial ambiguity; wild has all type of connotations that defiled does not. Now we know La Belle Dame is a more or less malignant creature. . And 'eyes were wild' isn't even a cliche here; here eyes were literally wild, wild means what it does; she i s wild. Even 'beguiled' might work, but 'defiled'? I don't find flowers for girls that defile me with their eyes, I'd take her straight to the grot but I wouldn't leave my number.
Fourth Stanza: Throng works, but why? 'Pacing steed' already covers the urgency.
Sixth Stanza: Unnecessary. Again it hints to strongly of the coming disaster, the knight, who's telling this part still found the honey sweet; it adds poignancy to he desertion. And wild honey is the kind you find in the woods....
Seventh Stanza: Keat's actual version goes like this:
She took me to her elfin grot,
And there she wept and sighed full sore,
And there I shut her wild, wild eyes
With kisses four.
If you change 'wild' to 'mild' it changes the Poet's intent. Again, if a girl gives me mild eyes I won't be suprised if she's not there in the morning.
Eight Stanza: Changes the meaning. The 'cold hill's side' isn't cliche. It's winter; it's cold; it's even colder for the night, who's suffering from his loss. It's duplicity of meaning, by your definition of cliche, isn't cliche. 'Lone hill' means it's the only hill around....
Again, I see where he's coming from, but the rewrite is too obvious in parts and too obscure in others. Now what I would like to see is Schneider resurrect one of Keat's immature, over the top, hopelessly cliche early poems.
13 - will
If I took my work to an editor, and they proposed changes such as this, I'd promptly take my work to another editor. The strength of poetry is the whole; every line isn't going to be great. Hell, it's like texting a girl, you have to use a bunch of sometimes average, sometimes good lines to set yourself up for the one perfect line that couldn't be said any better. The initial poem is effective, the second is perhaps more original, more visionary, more what have you on a line by line basis, but at the cost of overall effectiveness.
14 - El Bicho
Out of curiosity, why the sudden outburst of interest by Keith in defending Dan, two years after a review was posted?
15 - zingzing
"Usually this sort of thing happens when somebody posts something old to a message board or the like."
or when people can see which articles are getting comments through some sort of "fresh comments" type page located on the site.
dan's initial (and continued) reaction to a bit of criticism about his criticism was horribly hypocritical, aggressive and arrogant. the internet has been known to respond to such things.
16 - Dan Schneider
[Edited]
El: Didn't you have enough the last time I denuded your passive/aggressiveness?
Zing: [Edited] There's nothing hypocritical about responding to claims and debunking them. that's the essence of dialectic. What is hypocritical is pretending you have a point and hiding behind stupidity and nastiness, anonymously to boot.
Will: I'll await any further contact.
17 - Keith
Will: the line is the essential unit of poetry, but I would not say that Dan thinks only of the line and not of the whole; indeed, most of his revisions are aimed at heightening the whole by making incremental changes at the level of the line.
Anyway, to address your points: Dan does say in his essay that he thinks that starting at the second stanza has the benefit both of condensing the poem a bit by avoiding unnecessary repetition (the important recapitulation is beginning and end, not beginning) and that stanza 2 is similar enough to stanza 1 to contain its meaning within itself while also creating the illusion that change has occurred. Essentially, both stanza 1 and the final stanza end with mood-setting invocations of nature, but rather than rotely repeat the lines, Dan's version makes them different in order to subtly show the journey that has occurred. Whether this is more powerful is probably arguable, but the main point of his revision was to condense the first two stanzas into one; TOP is primarily a series on revision, after all, and while he gives his reasoning for the changes that he makes, he never says that arguments can't be made to the contrary. If you like, use the first stanza instead of the second, but I do think that the initial repetition was pretty unnecessary and that its removal was a good idea (brevity and all that).
Second stanza: One of Dan's major critical points is that a cliche, if unredeemed in some way, is ALWAYS a bad thing in art, for it shows a lack of craft and consideration on the part of the author. I personally don't think the lines are stilted or hard to understand; they retain pretty much the same music as the original but sans the cliche. The anguish is the first thing to appear on the brow, spread evenly across it like dew, and so the color starts coming out of her cheeks as quickly as it has on the rest of her face. It's a poetic way to say that the color is coming out of her face sans the cliches and melodrama of the original; so what's the problem? It may not be quite as easily understood as the original, but it's not THAT tough.
Third stanza: It's a fairly minor semantic difference, but you do possibly have a point with this one. I don't personally think that "defiled" makes that big of a difference, as the point either way is that the narrator sees that the girl is DTF (as the kids say) and ready for his lovin'. Perhaps beguiled would work as well, but it also makes it seem as though the sexual vibes are emanating from the man (i.e. she's been beguiled) rather than the original implication that it's the girl who instigates it all. So, I think Dan's word choice is closer to the original voice and intent, but I suppose I could see arguments going either way.
Fourth stanza: Giving way to passion and not noticing anything the rest of the day is phrased in a rather cliche way in the original; by changing it to "the day's throng" you are essentially changing it from telling to showing, i.e. showing what it is that's being missed amid the hurried sexual frenzy.
Sixth stanza: it really depends upon what you want to emphasize in the poem, doesn't it? Dan's version does de-emphasize the hidden nature of the woman's two-facedness, which does take away a bit of the shock of the end; at the same time, though, I do think that there's power in the fact that he's aware of the little imperfections on the journey there - soiled honey, strange languages - and yet still doesn't seem able to put the pieces together until it's all over. It gives us insight into the character at the expense of the visceral reaction of the audience at the end, which is perhaps an unfortunate loss but replaced by something equally as valuable, perhaps even more so. This is perhaps a consequence of the fact that one poet revising another's work will always change the voice a little bit, but I don't think the difference is SO profound that there's not value in Dan's choice of replacement.
Seventh Stanza: The difference, though, is that the eyes are "mild made," which essentially captures the fact that as far as the narrator knows, she's been calmed down by him; indeed, I might argue that this actually makes the end a bit MORE shocking. Keats' final version does have the "sigh full sore," though, which is another way of redeeming the original cliche, since the sigh comes seemingly from her own tiredness after a good romp in bed. It's arguable which of the revisions is better, I think; I prefer Dan's, but it can go either way.
Ninth stanza: Dan didn't say that duplicity of meaning makes something not cliche, merely that that's a common result of veering away from cliche; "cold hill side" has duplicity, but both meanings are fairly cliche (as well as unnecessary, since the first stanza of the poem sets up the fact that it's cold). "Lone hill side" crystallize the image a bit further - by, as you say, making the hill the only one in the area- and also maintains the original meaning of the knights own loneliness.
It's good that you can see where he's coming from, but I'd argue that pretty much every change that he made DID change the poem for the better; certain things are lost, but what's gained by the concision and lack of cliches ultimately ends up improving it. The cliches of the poem aren't colloquialisms justifiable by the fact that they're being spoken by a layperson but pure and simple cliches of the Romantic sort, which do end up dating the poem and making its strings more obvious.
El Bicho: I took interest because Dan forwarded the sudden response to the e-list to get our opinion, as he often does. Simple enough.
18 - will
@Keith--
I can see all of your points, as I could Dan's originally, and I still stand by all of mine, so at this point we've reached the point, where based on individual opinions and entrenchment of said opinions, we could go on endlessly. At this point it comes down to what someone is looking for out of poetry in general--my primary interests in writing are clarity, facility, elegance, charm, wit, restraint, and consideration of language (within these parameters). It's why I would choose to read Keats over someone like Blake; or just about any writer over John Updike. I tend to value natural talent over sheer effort (Yates, for the record, is an effort guy).
But I appreciate your in-depth reply. And now I must bid this thread adieu, before the body of replies exceeds the length of the review.
19 - El Bicho
What on earth are you talking about, Dan? We had a disagreement. Not sure how you could blow it so far out of proportion, but if that's your perspective, it explains why you are so nasty to those with a different opinion.
Keith, thanks for the explanation to a simple question. Seemed odd for you to show up out of the blue and challenge Will, so I was curious. I would have thought someone who considers himself such a great thinker wouldn't need help to fight his battles.
20 - Dan Schneider
[Edited]
El: Nasty? You're the one who trolls BC with nasty and inane comments on dozens, if not hundreds of threads, well beyond the few where I've embarrassed you.
As for Keith: I actually asked for people's opinions on whether or not Will had any potential to move beyond his rather rote and juvenile thinking on art. The consensus was yes, but he needs to work on it. I certainly did not ask nor need any help to flick off the silly masturbations of you and the monosyllabic crowd.
El, take a look at this thread. As I and Keith- who, btw, showed me much understanding of verse I did not know he had in him,have shown, Will's claims about art, the book, and my revisions on some poem, were demonstrably wrong. Nonetheless, despite often dealing w trolls like you on such threads, I gave the kid the benefit of the doubt. I even offered to have him engage me so I could help him learn.
This despite his misreadings, intentional or not. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
21 - zingzing
dan clearly knows he's arrogant. he just can't stand it when people point it out.
22 - zingzing
i've read the review (and the book) and i agree with will that the melodrama has its own point. as much as anything else, it's a book about how dramatic representations in art affect our responses to personal drama. is it any wonder that it all starts with a play? i don't think yates is the greatest writer ever, or this is the greatest novel ever, but you seemed to have missed a great deal of the novel's strengths. which would explain why you don't like it.
but my major fault with this article came in the comments field, where you came across as arrogant (you aren't the greatest [long list of things you claim to be the greatest ever at] ever, sir), hypocritical (you can dish it out, but can't take it without getting personal), homophobic (check comment #26), and belligerent towards anyone that would dare disagree with you.
in short, you come off like a dick in the comments. will lobbed a ball into your court and you pissed on it. that he still played was good on him. you did nothing to deserve his reply. i'd hope someone who doles out criticism for a living could take a little. but your word is god, according to you. and that's sickening.
23 - Dan Schneider
Zing: why did it take you so long to utter some intelligence? Your take, like Will's is wrong, but at least coherent. Go back and look at the replies of mine. I addressed every one of Will's and others' comments.
When you and others were rude you got bitchslapped.
And I did not NOT like the book- I objectively showed the many flaws that prevent it from being called great or good. There is a difference. Thi sis why the article is multi-page and not just a bumper sticker.
And I can certainly take legit criticism- but I can also bitchslap illegitimate ones, and point by point refute BAD criticism. Like many online people, you simply do NOT like that I do so. I can defend my claims and debunk false claims. It's called critical thinking. It's hypocritical of you to even claim hypocrisy on my part when I clearly respond forcefully and directly. If I just blew it off you'd have some gripe.
It's also hypocritical of you to throw a false claim like homophobia around when a) I have no clue over the sexes of two ANONYMOUS trolls who are jointly verbally masturbating in tandem. The comment simply and humorously sums up your lack of intellect shown till then, and your typical troll like behaviors. I called you out on it. You had no defense, so you throw up a bogus claim to try and evince that I somehow am guilty of bigotry when it was you and others guilty of trolling.
And this is not belligerence, just schooling you and others on how to properly and maturely engage in fruitful dialectic online. In short, think twice before you embarrass yourself; there will ALWAYS be someone better and smarter at debating. That's not arrogance, just advice.
Will, in fact, appreciate my comments, and is now in contact with me privately. So, he did NOT take any offense. His opinions were wrong, as I and Keith demonstrated, but he did not piss on things like a child. Look at what you are doing. You are PRESUMING an offense where none was, and where none was directed AT YOU! This is just your self-justification for trolling.
You know what I do when I come across an article online that I disagree with? Be it political, on art, science or philosophy? From creationists, Right Wingers, or PC Elitists? Guess? I just click away. I don't waste time arguing w those w closed minds. Clearly that is not me, as the exchanges with Will, where I did him the courtesy of directly addressing every point, prove.
So, it comes down to this. You simply disliked something and had no way of intellectually refuting it, so decided to act out of your worst trollish instincts, then try to justify it by claiming things about me that are demonstrably false- a classic straw man argument.
Your actions are not really sickening, though. Just predictable, and silly, as I could have narrated almost every reply doled out on this thread....because your replies and others are not unique and are product of the American hive mind that HATES anything that forces it out of its comatose and lazy state.
On the positive side, I did get one- one- glimmer in this last reply, that you are not totally hopeless. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
That's why my writing and replies ARE valuable, and given that I deal with 1500+ emails and queries/requests PER WEEK at my website, it says something that I have taken time, at least once a day, to address what otherwise are silly, self-serving, and mostly pointless juvenile antics from you and others. Why?
Read your last comment's first paragraph. You wrote it. I evinced it.
24 - Dan Schneider
BTW- here's an interview with an up and coming historian that goes well beyond typical online crap.
25 - zingzing
if you don't want people to think you're a bigot, don't make comments easily construed as bigotry. you knew what you were doing with the late comment #26, so don't play dumb.
and what makes you think you're being objective? your opinions are your own, but they are not absolute. just because you say something could be better done this way or that way does not mean it would necessarily be better done that way.
if you consider will's criticism to be "BAD," i consider yours to be lacking. you seem to be simply ignorant of one of the novel's major points, at least from how i read it.
either way, you shouldn't go around personally insulting those that would disagree with you right off the bat. it doesn't help. you certainly came off as a troll, which will only get you the same reaction on the internet. so if you feel i (or roger or any of the others on this thread) came off as a troll, you fully asked for it.
so blame yourself.
(and if you want to get around the editors, you have to qualify your insults. you can't be fucking dumb about it.)