Are you incapable of doing anything other than offering insults or making
crass and simplistic statements? At least Peter Riley's view is backed up by
the facts.
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: lone star aim? (was: Re: Fwd: Re: Halk, Watan, Turkmenbash)
> Riley and Green's arrogance is indeed indelible:
>
> At 10:35 AM -0600 10/7/01, Jeremy Green wrote:
> >
> >FAMOUS LAST WORDS
> >
> >'Surely someone who didn't win an election
> >Won't be allowed to start a world war.'
> >
> > _100 Days_, p.19
>
>
> You and your's weren't permitted to steal it with your registration
> of illegals and felons, your Stalinist vote getting, your media
> manipulation.
>
> Either you are on the side of those fighting the Terrorists or you
> are on the side of the Terrorists.
>
> Face the consequences. You started the World War, Green and Riley,
> since you stand with the Terrorists. There is no middle ground.
>
> Get it?
>
>
>
>
>
> >Robin,
> >
> >Just briefly (more urgent threads abounding on the list right now), I
> >don't agree with your characterization of the editing of 100 Days. If
you
> >look at the back of the volume you'll find an editorial statement which
> >concludes: "This anthology's index finger points out of 30 April 2001
> >toward the guilty future. I doubt that there is any possibility for
> >effective dissent. I wanted to make a place to say so. Use these last
> >pages to keep your own records. Use this book however you can." Not
> >"let's feel good together" - but let's really think what we can do, what
> >poetry can do. At most: let's feel bad together.
> >
> >100 Days was put together very quickly to mark the day in question, and
to
> >mark it in a way that differed from the newspaper editorials (no talk of
> >honeymoon periods here!). And, incidentally, almost bankrupted the
editor
> >in the process (in my view, an example of the kind of energy and
> >risk-taking that the small press scene is, at its best, about). It's
> >*not* the Penguin Book of Political Verse (edited, presumably, by Kenneth
> >Baker or anyone of his ilk). But having said that, the reader who
> >ventures beyond the back cover will find thought and pattern in the
> >arrangement (organization by chronology, theme and motif - the pieces
really
> >do speak to each other).
> >
> >A further point has to do with political cartoons. I like these too, but
> >would suggest that poetry can raise a more various and complex critique,
> >and has, in the end, many more resources to call upon.
> >
> >Sorry - this is hasty and vague and past its sell-by date. However, I
did
> >want to say a genuine thanks for raising these questions and making me go
> >back to the book (and I've even made a couple of new discoveries: Andy
> >Johnson and Stephen Ratcliffe - both well worth a look). I'm not sure I
> >can change your view that the glass is half empty.
> >
> >And to close, Peter Riley's piece which grows daily more apt:
> >
> >FAMOUS LAST WORDS
> >
> >'Surely someone who didn't win an election
> >Won't be allowed to start a world war.'
> >
> > _100 Days_, p.19
> >
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >Jeremy
>
>
> --
>
>
|