Can't argue with that, Finnegan. Some do lots, some do little, and some
do in between. The Lifshin model also served for Wm. Stafford, as I
recall (up by four, fifteen pieces written by noon, rest of the day  
off).
Ashbery, as I've read, has limited his output by not writing on Fridays.
Everyone finds his/her own way.

Hal

On Oct 2, 2006, at 9:50 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>
> In a message dated 10/1/2006 7:26:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> That  point was passed centuries ago. Certainly listening to
> and reading  everything were never the point, don't  you
> think?
>
>
>
> Hal, of course no one reads or listens to everything...or even  the  
> least
> fraction of everything. In some cases it's possible to taken in the
> entire output of single author...in the case of some authors  
> reading  them
> would be an epic feat in an of itself.
>
> I do wonder what this need to publish so incessantly means. In some
> cases it's probably a manifestation of the author's  
> neediness...the  need
> to feel one's work is needed in the world and copiously so...
>
> I don't know that this is case, in this case. I do know that word
> processing and desktop publishing technology have accelerated the
> time from written-to-published, and that has increased output of
> 'literary product'. I'm reminded that Henri Michaux did some of his
> caligraphic drawings so quickly that, it's said, one hand was  pulling
> next sheet of paper off the stack while the other furiously drew a  
> few  lines
> on the sheet at hand, and on and on it went, heedless (or headless)  
> and
> headlong,
> through hundreds of drawings. The Henry Ford of artistic production.
> In and of itself, as an artistic method, there is certainly nothing  
> wrong
> with
> this kind of art-making...and it could at times result in very  
> interesting
> artworks.
> Should one then try to make a career by furiously applying strokes  
> of  ink
> to paper sheets? That, I don't think, would be the best course  
> (and  it
> wasn't the course of Michaux, I should say).
>
> And I do have feeling that some writers think their reputations  
> will be  made
> based on horizontal measure of shelf space. We natter away
> with our fountain pens and keypads, but we often overlook that other
> valuable 'writing instrument': the wastebasket. It too has a   
> function.
> Finnegan