<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: DO NOT BE FOOLED - THIS BOOK STINKS!
Review: I bought this book of poetry and it was not even above average. So, I looked it up on Amazon.com and came across a reviewer who keeps defending this book and saying negitive things about the other reviewers. Do not listen to this lone reviewer! The poetry in this book is boring, disconnected in its content, and not at all "cutting-edge". If this book was so great, Hume would have quickly had another book published, which never happened.
Rating: 
Summary: are we all reading the same book?
Review: I know a reader-review should respond to the book itself, and not the comments of the other reviewers, but this recent batch of negative reviews are so wildly off the mark that they beg correction. I don't know what these readers are thinking, but it seems to me like they either haven't read 'Musca Domestica' or simply lack the faculties to read it fairly.In any case, potential buyers, don't be discouraged by these nonsensical reviews. 'Musca Domestica' is an incredibly rewarding book: the poems are only difficult in the way that the most intriguing and beautiful puzzles are difficult. These poems reward in every way: Ms. Hume manages to be funny and poignant and provoactive and weird all at once, and the more time you spend with this book the more delightful it becomes. Give 'Musca Domestica' a try -- the poems have earned it, and the book will richly repay your attention! And to you 'readers' in the one-star crowd: snap out of it, kids.
Rating:
Summary: Reviewing reviews- a 2nd look at Musca Domestica on Amazon
Review: I wrote one of the first reviews of Musca Domestica on Amazon.com, and am revisiting the site with the knowledge that Christine Hume's next book, Alaskaphrenia, has won the Green Rose Prize and will be published by New Issues in 2004. Many of the negative reviews of Musca Domestica stem from misconceptions. Several reviewers have complained that there is no emotion to Hume's poetry, implying that a work must be emotional to be poetic. The implied point is debatable, but let's clear the air and say that her work IS largely intellectual. If you are looking for accessible poetry, this is not the book to choose. If you are looking for the avant-garde, poetry that requires several readings, or poetry that specifically tries to deconstruct linguistic norms, THEN you should choose Musca Domestica. Regarding two points made by a recent reviewer: that the book is disconnected in content and that, if it was great, Hume would have immediately followed it with another. First of all, the book is tightly bound by a thematic/linguistic link: the use of the fly imagery. Another reviewer even lamented this fact, claiming that it leaves little room for originality (leaving me to wonder what that reviewer thinks of formal constraints such as sonnets, quatrains, etc). The opening poem is essentially a list of definitions and phrases associated with the word fly. Virtually all the poems in the book play in some way or another with this word, and even those that deviate from a strict link are still bound by the haphazard nature of a fly's path. I repeat, the path is not narrative but thematic. Secondly, the majority of poets do not operate on a publishing scale like Stephen King. As a general rule, the ones who turn out books of poetry by the handful are self- or vanity-published and very elementary (read: Hallmark verse). There is no timeline which a poet must stick to in order to be "good." The last point is one that several reviewers have already made: Modern vs. Postmodern. Hume is primarly a Postmodern poet. I won't take umbrage with the reviewers who dislike Postmodernism as a whole; that is their perogative. But please, don't disparage Hume for not writing like a Modernist. Apples to oranges. Whether you're going to praise or condemn Musca Domestica (and I continue to praise it), please do so on its own merits and place within Poetry.
<< 1 >>
| 
