>> with which, I must say, I mostly agree, but now --
>> subsequent to this enlightening discussion -- view as ridiculously
>> reductionist.)
>Did you mean to say, 'deliciously' reductionist?
>Or did the discussion hop some nonsensical boundary from which there is no
>sensible return?
>Help me out before I get 'ridiculous'!
>
>Meanwhile not back in Conway, Connecticut but still viral,
>
>Stephen V
Well, you see, Sharon, we started out in the land of 'suckableness' that
contemporary American poetry 'sucks' and sucks because it has to suck up to
political correctness, which puts it in the most prestigious poetry journal which
sucks, but which is necessary, sadly, in order to suck up to academic
departments for a job,
but at some point,
perhaps when the pink porky float in the parade passed by,
tossing out minties and mintos, Mairead on the roof changed it to 'suckability'
which is the sort of boundary we all too seldom hop, nonsenically or not,
for
something which is full of suckability, as poetry is, is sweet, like mints or milk
and honey or Stephen's honeysuckle he sucked on or the tender ends of sweet
grass that I once did, and so ever since, we've all been
deliciously
mad
though I think, personally, that Stephen and I are currently the most dementos,
since neither of us in Conway (that's MASSACHUSETTS, Stephen, NOT
Connecticut)
but viral with our nerve endings singing like crickets,
Rebecca
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:20:28 -0800
>From: Stephen Vincent <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: The suckability of contemporary American poetry
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>> with which, I must say, I mostly agree, but now --
>> subsequent to this enlightening discussion -- view as ridiculously
>> reductionist.)
>Did you mean to say, 'deliciously' reductionist?
>Or did the discussion hop some nonsensical boundary from which there is no
>sensible return?
>Help me out before I get 'ridiculous'!
>
>Meanwhile not back in Conway, Connecticut but still viral,
>
>Stephen V
|