I must agree Jeremy that I was also a little puzzled by the posting from
cris (hello grumpy cris). In fact I read it a couple of times because I
thought I must  have misread.  I've actually been too frantically busy
since xmas to doing anything more than glance at the mailbase letters
but I did enjoy the accounts of Charles' reading (thank you one and all)
and also count myself amongst the 'wish I could have been there'
brigade.

But I am puzzled by why cris seems to resent the fact that some
people may have changed their minds about him (C.B) (I've always
been a 'fan' so I probably escape this reprimand).  Charles is a very
warm person with enormous creative energy and a great sense of humour -
isn't it a good thing if the word has spread and he has new 'converts'?
Surely this is to be applauded and encouraged not begrudged?
And yes some people on the list
may convey their impressions in simplistic terms but that doesn't
mean they are surface or shallow; they are quick sketch
impressions, it would be a shame to stifle such posts because there
is really nothing like putting the frighteners on people by telling
them they're not thinking hard or deep enough - cripes - with my level
of postings I'd be the first in the corner with hands on head.

I think the list can easily take care of itself without the artificial
intervention of subject debate or whatever.  If it turns into a
noticeboard interjected with funny quips so be it.  The only time it
gets depressing is when the sad abusive nonces take over - but even they go
away if sufficiently ignored.  Let it ride its own wave.

Oh well back to being frr-a-n-tic (to be uttered a la Garbo).
And cris - check out the kitchen - I suspect a couple of crossed
knives - you don't sound your chirpy self.
G.






-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Green <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, January 25, 2002 09:45
Subject: Re: future list


>Cris,
>
>I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  Agreed there's a serious
>problem surrounding access to small press materials, and agreed better
>discussion's called for, but your tone has the air of a despairing
>schoolmaster about it: I've told you to discuss poetry, so you 've done a
>bit of it and it's just not good enough!  It's also discouraging to be
>told that without 25 years of shelf space and collector's acuity, one just
>can't play.  I'd have thought that it's precisely these kind of gulfs of
>access - and, let's face it, the structures of influence within networks -
>that make a list such as this welcome (though, granted, often the
>conversation has of late veered to the small talk end of things).
>
>Can you say more about the "rigour in the breath of readings"?
>What does this mean?
>
>(re CB and enthusiasm, surely the brush is much too broad: why
>assume in the first place that everybody used to be hostile or
>dismissive of CB - I don't recall that ever being the case - and,
>more carpingly, I'd point out that I tried to raise questions/objections
>based on the reading I saw; can't really comment on the London one)
>
>Well, the tone sounds to me like you want to fold the tent and be done
>with it.  Any other views out there?
>
>Best,
>
>Jeremy
>