Kent,
your analogies may be a bit fanciful but they're fun to read.
still, I'm not sure there's a simple way out of the 'trap.' Nor do I find
myself too upset by the apparent desire you suggest below:
>Fanciful and badly punned as the above analogy undoubtedly is, one must go
>by observation, and by its light, who canít but feel that what the [Robert]
>Pinskyís and the [Susan] Howeís, the [Bob] Perelmanís and the [Adrienne]
>Richís alike desire most truly is to be enshrined in the canonís diurnal
>course, right alongside old Wordsworth?
Maybe, maybe, but I'd also argue that each one of those named expresses (&
perhaps seeks to satisfy) that desire in very different fashions (or is it
only that I, as reader [or would you say, merely consumer] find them so?),
& in those differences, subtly nuanced, are also different senses of what
such enshrinement might mean, if it means anything at all.
So: is there any hope whatsoever to achieve 'collaborative modes [that]
would no doubt explode within an active counter-economy of heteronymy'? And
where is that 'heteronymy' top be found?
Doug
Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
(h) [780] 436 3320 (b) [780] 492 0521
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
Late night
resurrection of a forgotten love, a vanished
civilization, where the waning moon is the
accusational eye of a discarded lover. . . .
Love's absence
is still love, the heart a celestial wound.
Christopher Dewdney
|