test


 ==========================================================================
DOWN IN LIVERPOOL - NEW CD - FROM JIM BENNETT
"an authentic voice bringing the sound of beat to Liverpool"
Buy it now £8.99 on line from http://www.mp3fm.co.uk/
or available from your record store.
 =========================================================================


 ==========================================================================
Jim Bennett - Homepage
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/1127/
Lollipop - small poetry publishers.
http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/llpp
PK Poetry List
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/9952/index.htm
 ==========================================================================





----- Original Message -----
From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 28 November 2000 00:20
Subject: Fw: Invisible Tattoos and democratic disagreement


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: david.bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
> poetics, r <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Invisible Tattoos and democratic disagreement
>
>
> > Hugh Tolhurst writes:
> >
> > > Disagree with me by all means (though it would help
> > > your case if you read the book in question) but don't
> > > deny my right to democratically comment that a very
> > > unfavourable review was undeserved. Similarly, don't
> > > deny the right of Aural Text on 3RRR to democratically
> > > discuss whether the review was fair on the airwaves.
> > > Well, that is don't deny these rights if you are
> > > democratically inclined.
> > >
> >
> > Now I know that the changeover of listservers has tangled and confused
the
> > run of the threads, but I still haven't seen where anyone in this and
> > related threads has denied either Hugh's right to comment or the radio
> > station's right to discuss the review, bearing in mind that by
discussion
> I
> > do mean a debate where the 'verdict' is not predetermined.
> > I do, though, balk at the last sentence above, and it's apparent
> association
> > via aspersion of anyone who doesn't echo the writer's views with
> > anti-democratic attitudes.
> > But even more than that, I have to object to Hugh Tolhurst's continuance
> of
> > his disagreement with Alison to the point where he is going beyond a
> > badgering protest, however tedious, and coming close to the personally
> > vindictive. Mr Tolhurst does not agree with Alison. He has said so. Mr
> > Tolhurst does not agree with her. He has said so again.
> >
> > And again and again and...
> >
> > Which is rather a hectoring, or a bully would-be.
> >
> >  And with that I disagree, I find it reprehensible, and almost worse,
> > aesthetically, boring,
> >
> >  and you bet, I deny his 'right' to do so.
> >
> >  Democratically, that is.
> >
> > david bircumshaw
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hugh Tolhurst <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 11:57 PM
> > Subject: Invisible Tattoos and democratic disagreement
> >
> >
> > > The archive has been slow updating but I'm
> > > informed via Candice Ward that 'puerile' and
> > > 'get off the pot' are terms now involved in
> > > discussing my view that a book Invisible Tattoos
> > > is better than a review by Alison Croggon suggests.
> > >
> > > In disagreeing with that ABR review, I'm really
> > > only echoing sentiments expressed by Morag Fraser
> > > in ABR's October 2000 Symposium on reviewing.
> > > Morag Fraser commented:-
> > >
> > > 'Trenchant understanding yields so much more for the
> > > reader (and writer) than a parade of superior taste
> > > and sharp (or cruel) phrase making.'
> > >
> > > In noting that others (3RRR's Aural Text) also
> > > disagreed with the review and planned to air these
> > > disagreements, I was volunteering information
> > > chanced upon. Alicia Sometimes is also employed
> > > at my local bookshop, she chanced to mention her
> > > view of the review to me on Friday... (That is, some
> > > time after I'd posted my view that the review was
> > > harsh and undeserved).
> > >
> > > It so happens I subscribe to 3RRR largely because
> > > I like the music it plays and think it the best of
> > > Australia's independent stations, but also because
> > > I enjoy shows like 'Aural Text'. If anyone other
> > > than Candice took exception to my post mentioning
> > > the nature of the 3 RRR license in response to Coral
> > > Hull's 'I would listen to 3 RRR but I've got a life' - well,
> > > no pejorative reflection on Coral was intended (and I
> > > apologise to Coral if offence was somehow taken), I was
> > > merely writing in defence of the excellent radio station she
> > > dismissed.
> > >
> > > If I thought the review unfair, it is after all partly
> > > because I purchased and read the book before
> > > reading the review. It's not the very best poetry collection
> > > I've read in 2000 but it is far from the worst I've read
> > > and I didn't think it deserved Alison's 'sharp (or cruel)
> > > phrase making' by way of review.
> > >
> > > Disagree with me by all means (though it would help
> > > your case if you read the book in question) but don't
> > > deny my right to democratically comment that a very
> > > unfavourable review was undeserved. Similarly, don't
> > > deny the right of Aural Text on 3RRR to democratically
> > > discuss whether the review was fair on the airwaves.
> > > Well, that is don't deny these rights if you are
> > > democratically inclined.
> > >
> > > Hugh Tolhurst
> > >
> >
>