Yes, dear, your cry for help has been heard. Think of it as a PO equivalent
to the VA treatment program for post-traumatized Vietnam vets. You'll be
okay if you sign yourself in.
Candice
on 3/1/01 3:10 PM, kent johnson at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> My god, are "you people" getting paranoid!
>
>>
>> Good idea to cross-post this item from Subsub, Dave, as I think it's
>> probably the only warning we'll get of the game that's now afoot re: the
>> referendum on the continued existence of that other list--to be
>> conclusively
>> concluded tomorrow.
>>
>> These hints of something Sokal-soaked as having already this way come are
>> probably just a diversionary tactic, don't you think? An ostensibly (and
>> conspicuously) scumbled Prosodic track dubbed with faux immanence avant the
>> Figural letter?
>>
>> Maybe Brit-Po's hatches ought to be battened down now--given this morning's
>> red skies (IMHO)--even before the Subsubpo shipping list emerges with all
>> hands up or down tomorrow.
>>
>> Ahoy there!
>>
>> Candice
>>
>>
>> David Bircumshaw wrote:
>>
>>> This is worth passing on. For our 'information'.
>> _______________________________________
>>>> In a message dated 3/1/01 9:30:49 AM, [log in to unmask]
>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>> << ... that was part of the (initial, BritPo) problem. There was (I
>> don't
>>>>
>>>> think it was ONLY me) a real doubt as to whether Kent and Jacques were
>>> Truly
>>>>
>>>> Separate Entities. >>
>>>>
>>>> What's fascinating about new media/genres is that literary devices have
>>> not
>>>> yet become routinized. At the beginning of the novel, the epistolary
>>> genre
>>>> was, for example, scadalous for this very reason. Now who cares? One
>>> reason
>>>> people here & at Brit Po reacted so negatively was for the same
>>> reason--Kent
>>>> & I used persona & the epistolary form in a way that was still
>>>> provocative--mainly because it was done as a series of *e-mails* on a
>>>> Listserve. But think of how much more provocative other experiments
>> could
>>>> still be.
>>>>
>>>> Kent
|