At 04:41 PM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>On 29/3/06 11:50 PM, "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > But what I've been talking about at some
> > length isn't a question of discipleship, but of dialogue.
>
>Sure: but how can you presume the dialogues of others? Especially with
>something as multiply conscious as poetry.
OK, so as a poet you're in dialogue with Eliot. If you say so.
>And the, yes, Abrahamic images
>are somewhat patriarchal, no?
OK, like Sarah, the father of many tribes.
Maybe we should ban all reference, no matter how formulaic, to
anything produced by earlier generations--they were so unPC.
I presume that you're trying to be funny. Just in case, this kind of
feminism is the self-indulgence of the privileged. If we all chose
other references there would still be clitorectomies and massive
amounts of gender-directed violence. Best not to waste one's time on
this simplistic nonsense, I would think. Especially when dealing with
something as "multiply conscious" as gender.
>Plus there's something Oedipal in this insistent interring of Eliot. But
>this is merely intransigent back and forth.
Hey, aint my daddy. Or mommy.
I will admit to a taste for provocativeness, tho. A quality we share.
>All best
>
>A
>
>
>Alison Croggon
>
>Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
>Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
>Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|