No worries - m'dear - your header was a little less cryptic than mine - I guess most people would call him a novelist, I think, for me, his language and approach was more significant than the stories that he told, which is why I described him as a poet.

I think that it mattered to me that someone like him existed, that he could say the unsayable and still raise a smile. I have a sense of his voice as a backdrop to the 20th century - a counterpoint to the those who are relentlesly cheerful - someone who helped give a voice to the doom and gloom in a way that made it feel like someone else was depressed at the state of the world.