Just after posting the below I noticed Kent's 'Invitation' which includes:
(re my: ' As for Lind, what's his first name?')
the revelation (to me)
> Dear Michael Lind,
which shaft of light leads me to ponder absolutely nothing.
If his name has any resonance in some quarters in my thick ears it means
nowt, except as that of a recycler of second-hand opinions, poorly mounted,
that is present in my mind as irritating intrusion on this list.
David B
----- Original Message -----
From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: Lind on the Bard
> Chris Emery put an enormous amount into this list, long before I ever
> joined, and there are several of his posts which, to this day, reverberate
> in my mind. I heartily echo the wishes for his best and echo the welcome
to
> Randolph Healy.
>
> As for Lind, what's his first name?
>
> Best
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Lind on the Bard
>
>
> > If Lind subscribes to Poetryetc, he'll be just that: a subscriber. This
> > means he'll be held to the same standards of civility that must prevail
on
> > an unmoderated discussion list such as ours for everyone from lurker to
> > conversation-monopolizer, for the occasional announcement poster as for
> the
> > polemicist.
> >
> > As far as list projects and publication go, these are the domain of
> > Poetryetc's editorial board and publisher (Salt), although project
> proposals
> > are certainly welcome from listees. So, thanks for the offer to edit
this
> > thread for publication, Kent, but that won't be necessary, and, while a
> very
> > good discussion is certainly under way, I don't see anything in it
> > project-wise myself. Nor do I see what Michael Lind could contribute to
a
> > poetry list or discussion of metrics in particular, since he seems so
> > unfamiliar with the field. But he's welcome to subscribe to the list if
he
> > subscribes to its tenets and observes its few policies.
> >
> > This seems like a good moment to mention that Chris Emery has had to
step
> > down from the board for reasons to do with job and family demands, and
I'm
> > sure that longtime Poetryetceteras will share Alison's and my own regret
> at
> > seeing Chris go and will want to join us in wishing him all the best. On
> the
> > upside, we're very pleased that Randolph Healy has accepted our
invitation
> > to join the board. So, fare-thee-well, Chris, and many thanks from all
of
> us
> > for everything you've contributed to Poetryetc from its beginnings--and
> > welcome, er, aboard, Randolph!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Candice
> >
> >
> >
> > on 7/9/01 12:55 PM, kent johnson at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> > > In an age where Jorie Graham and Allen Ginsberg are considered great
> poets,
> > > says Lind, it's no surprise that Shakespeare is so grossly
overrated...
> (see
> > > article below)
> > >
> > > Anyway, I've got the man's email. He is impressively prolific (books
of
> > > history, sociology, novels, and poetry) and is on editorial boards of
> New
> > > Yorker, New Republic, and Harper's, and a regular on T.V. talking-head
> > > shows. And the fellow's 33 or 34 years old. He is quoted in an article
> as
> > > identifying himself as a "polemicist" and saying that since there is
> only "a
> > > right position and a wrong one" that the art of polemics "is to write
> your
> > > opponents off the page."
> > >
> > > OK, get ready if he says yes...
> > >
> > > http://www.newamerica.net/articles/Lind/ml-NewLeader-7-12-99.htm
> >
>
|