oops, meant for the list
L
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 13 March 2000 15:03
Subject: Re: God and competence
| No, I haven't abandoned it - I realised I had misapprehended the statement
| to which I reacted
|
| & I can't at the moment engage with this in the light of my clearer
| understanding
|
| but I'll think on it and try to come back on it
|
| anything with Melville in it has got to be worth effort
|
| Lawrence
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: <[log in to unmask]>
| To: <[log in to unmask]>
| Sent: 13 March 2000 14:47
| Subject: God and competence
|
|
| |
| | I wish Lawrence hadn't abandoned his question re Melville's diabolical
| book.
| | It wasn't the lushness of language that bilked Melville, he was more
than
| | able for that, and it wasn't the lushness of things, they were his
glory,
| | but the weird and unholy gap (between them) that he found himself king
of,
| | somewhat before time. When we believe in God, we are more satisfied with
| | competence.
| |
| | Does the question of evaluation turn upon politics? Unquestionably.
| |
| | Cheerio,
| |
| | Mairead
| |
| | On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, A.J. Croggon wrote:
| |
| | >
| | > I find the idea of an Australian Laureate extremely peculiar. Why
| | > would we want to follow in the footsteps of Bridges, Southey,
| | > Tennyson? To assure ourselves that poetry is Important?
| | >
| | > Best
| | >
| | > Alison
| | >
| | >
| |
| |
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|