THOMAS THE RHYMER -
Sta,—It is difficult not to admire the skill of Mr. Davenport's letter, but his urbanity and good humour should not be allowed to con- ceal his avoidance of the real issue raised by Mr. Amis's review. Many people (of whom I am one) regard Dylan Thomas's poetry as far too uneven to be that of a major poet and believe this uncertainty of touch to proceed in large part from that vaticinating surrealist element in his writings which • Mr. Amis analysed so ably in the second half of his notice. Now, this romantic proliferation of vaguely sexual or vaguely religious imagery is one of the worst scourges of modern English poetry, and though (as Mr. Amis noted) Thomas was getting out of this manner in his later poems, in his earlier works he fully justifies a violent reaction on the part of any young critic with his wits about him. This I take to be the main theme of Mr. Amis's notice, and (pace Mr, Davenport) it seems to me to be plain sense rather than pert paradox. It is hardly enough to say that 'there is no need . . . to defend Thomas against the charge of poetic sensationalism' (the word is. Mr. Davenport's). The real charge is that, at moments, his poetry appears to be that of a Welsh shaman rather than that of a creatively conscious artist, and it is up to his admirers to answer it by analysis of the texts in dispute. Until they are prepared to take as much trouble in detailed defence as Mr. Amis has taken in detailed criticism, it ill becomes them to load him with unwanted advice as to how to go about his job as a critic.—Yours faithfully,
THOMAS ARCHER
London, NW I
Previous page
