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
|