Nice catch, Tom, and apropos.
The story is a review of a book about the reading habits of the English
working clss in past centuries, when there seems to have been much less of
a class divide over what got read, in English, at least. The same was true
in the US. Samuel Gompers, the labor leader and founder of the CIO, worked
as a reader in a cigar workshop, reading the classics to the cigar makers.
All shops of any size that weren't too noisy had readers.
Mark
At 03:28 PM 9/10/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>this story from the NYTimes might be relevant here?
>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/08/arts/08CONN.html
>
>tom bell
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 5:21 PM
>Subject: Re: Postmodern?/more baroque
>
>
>> > While we're at it, you do, like most of us, suck at the trough of
>> bourgeois
>> > society. By the way
>>
>> Yes, Mark, we do.
>>
>> Altho' I can claim impeccable Brit working class credentials I'm very
>aware
>> too that my relative poverty is wealth by the standards of the Third World
>> and as well I have no idea what investments my company pension fund
>derives
>> its returns from.
>>
>> Mea culpa, altho' I'm very innocent by nature.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 10:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: Postmodern?/more baroque
>>
>>
>> > You don't really mean that. Just throw anything at the page? Learn
>nothing
>> > from the practice of one's craft?
>> >
>> > Of course I could say that any prestructured project reifies hierarchy,
>> but
>> > that would be pretty dumb. Also tactless and (intellectually) immature.
>> >
>> > If you don't want to engage an argument just say so. This sort of
>sidestep
>> > just pisses me off. I have a hard time abiding political accusations or
>> > fools in silence. Reminds me, I guess, of the endless arguments of my
>> > adolescence about who was a better Trotskyist.
>> >
>> > While we're at it, you do, like most of us, suck at the trough of
>> bourgeois
>> > society. By the way.
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> > At 08:49 PM 9/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>> > >On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:29:39 -0700, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>The links between the
>> > >>>poet and the literary/cultural theorist is somehow unavoidable. I
>> myself
>> > >>>do not believe in spontaneity and I hope that behind each poet there
>is
>> a
>> > >>>project not merely a vent of words, an outburst of tears or joy, the
>> > >desire
>> > >>>to give find expression for one's wrath.
>> > >>
>> > >>Theorists, some of them poets, will continue to theorize and
>> occasionally
>> > >>invent isms, but the impact of the link is certainly avoidable if
>theory
>> > >>follows from, is derived from, practice.
>> > >>
>> > >>Writing spontaneously doesn't mean writing egotistically. Writing with
>a
>> > >>project in mind often does. One is finally only protected from oneself
>> by
>> > >>tact and maturity.
>> > >>
>> > >>Mark
>> > >
>> > >By the way: tact and maturity are no reelvant measures for poetry.
>> > >these are good measures for bourgeois society.
>> > >
>> > >erminia
>> > >
>> >
>
|