Critically examine the description of the language of Thomas‟s poems as "babble language" and its syntax as "pseudo-syntax. Did he fail to articulate experience or what he felt? Would you accept the suggestion that he played with language but did not play the game of language and versification well enough to become a poet of permanent value? (MEG 102) (DYLAN THOMAS)

The term "babble language" was used by some critics to describe Dylan Thomas's poetry, and his syntax was described as "pseudo-syntax." However, such criticisms fail to appreciate the complexity and power of Thomas's language and verse.

Thomas's poetry is known for its rich and dense imagery, wordplay, and alliteration. His language is often difficult to parse, and it can be easy to get lost in the lushness of his descriptions. However, this is precisely what makes his poetry so unique and memorable. He did not fail to articulate his experiences or feelings; rather, he used language to create a world that was uniquely his own.

Moreover, the accusation that his syntax is "pseudo-syntax" is unfair. Thomas deliberately played with the rules of syntax and grammar, creating sentences that were often long and convoluted. This was a deliberate stylistic choice, one that allowed him to create a sense of musicality and rhythm in his verse. His syntax may be unconventional, but it is not meaningless.

Ultimately, it is misguided to suggest that Dylan Thomas did not play the game of language and versification well enough to become a poet of permanent value. His contributions to modern poetry are significant, and his work continues to inspire and move readers today. The richness and complexity of his language and verse are a testament to his skill as a poet, and his influence on subsequent generations of poets cannot be overstated.