----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Goode" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "the moshpit" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 12 June 2000 10:04
Subject: Re: [Re: Virtual Discovery of Poetry]
| while I fully respect the postings of previous messengers in this thread,
and
| the messengers too, everything here - the sorrow, protectiveness and
| frustration on one side; the seeming crass and sensational manipulation on
the
| other - feels to me exactly in place, and none of it truly impertinent or
| inapt.
What?!
Are you saying, Chris, that the article isn't crass? That it isn't
sensational manipulation? Seeming? The remit the guardian set itself was
wrong-headed.
Barry MacSweeney had a drink problem and he wrote some poetry but he was
drinking at the time. Oh by the way, did I mention he was an alcoholic?
Well, his life didn't run smoothly because he used to abuse alcohol... Um,
not sure the point is clear enough. Better call the article Message in a
bottle. Note to self, better say something more about his drinking
I find it impertinent. I find it "truly impertinent". I find it inapt. No
seeming about it. I would like to stuff each and every copy, including
everything now wrapped in them, where the author's and editor's brains don't
shine. Except for the operational phase, that would give me considerable
pleasure.
The article is a conscious falling for the *same crap that Barry fell for.
The self-destructive artist - as if everything isn't in a state of
destruction. If the Guardian had made better *use of a few of its pages over
the years, then there would have been less need to tell people who the man
was. (But Yossarian, they're shooting at everyone. What difference does that
make?)
One expects nothing more of the newspapers, infected germs in the pimples in
the armpits of the unwashed and diseased dead; but that in no way makes it
ok. They need more corpses to thrive.Their behaviour - it's more hands on
than will *waving - is an essential part of the uncreative social
destruction that fed BM's anger.
What did you expect? Nothing.
What do you want? Everything.
If we are going to discuss the self-destructiveness of creativity, let's,
instead of picking on one or two, deeming them to be creative, and then
asking why they can't hack it, let's look at everyone, especially the
well-paid editors publishers administrators and other achievers, suiciding
those who don't quite believe...
Years ago, when Edwina Currie had put her foot in it, Steve Bell in the
Guardian had Thatcher asking Currie What we do when we are in a mess? Currie
replied We talk bollocks Prime Minister. Very good, said Thatcher. Let's
practice talking bollocks. Gordon Burn was, in his published form talking
bollocks. From the point of view one in the pit he had helped to dig, it was
fine. From what I regard as a sane point of view, it was inapt, inept and
impertinent.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|