I am real lost, or this thread has lost me. For awhile I got the impression
the focus was on suckable mints somehow conflated into a Mintie poetry
magazine that Mairead at some point graced, but this was after episodes of
discussing whether or not Joe had suckered us with his parodies (during
which I remember falling asleep, not suckering or getting suckered by any of
it), and now I am trying to figure out if what will come up now - under the
'suckability' rubric - is if we are going down some rarely chartered,
perhaps totally new poetrylistserv history on or as to who - among poets, I
assume - has the ability to suck (as a negative, critical consequence in
his/her own poems, or as in the action of something more intimate, to what
or whom or how, I cannot imagine), yet to talk about it as in matters of
content, technique, and qualities - which I guess - we, as poet tasters -
are either already expert or will become so during the ensuing discussion.
Am I still totally off track. Whatever it is, purrhaps I am ready to hear
it.
Stephen V
Blog: http://stephenvincent.durationpress.com
> Ok, I'm praying too, you must be at the breaking point over 'suckableness'
> since you misspelled your own name! so, yes, the new poetics of suckability,
> it is, amen, amen, amen...
>
> Rebeeca
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:29:38 -0500
>> From: Mairead Byrne <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: The suckability of contemporary American poetry
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Okay people I can't stand misreading that suckableness any more so I'm
>> changing the subject line to suckability. Which sounds miles more
>> competent & enticing on my view, as philosophers say. Let's hope
>> suckability takes off, Please God please God please God....
>> Mairaed
>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask] 01/02/05 5:30 PM >>>
>> Hi Mairead,
>> Hey Jill Thank You! Happy New Year!
|