I don't see what's wrong with that final section; especially as it
isn't necessarily what the speaker thinks but what he quotes. Is it
weak? Or rather should it be? after what he (& we thinking it through
with him) have gone through? I begin to think it should be (whatever is
meant by 'weak when referring to such a quotation, such a figure of the
'familiar').
Fred: what you do here is something you do so well in many other
pieces: partly that is to think, but it's also to do so with a
particularly sharp, even cynical, vision of what's what. I think you do
do characters, in a way, I for example do not, & that they render a
despairing cynicism in the face of --...
Well, I dont necessarily see the need to cut that final section...
Doug
Douglas Barbour
11655 - 72 Avenue NW
Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
(780) 436 3320
not random, these
crystalline structures, these
non-reversible orders, this
camera forming tendencies, this
edge of greater length, this
lyric forever error, this
something embarrassingly clear, this
language we come up against
Kathleen Fraser
|