Ron was very nice to Steve Vincent, for which I'm grateful, but when
I thanked him, as Steve's publisher, he used the occasion to extract
a bunch of books from me. Apparently he feels entitled to get free
books from everyone. Presumably he's building a library to sell at
some point. A bit seedy. I'm not likely to feed that sense of
entitlement again--kissing the ring isn't in my nature.
Ron's rave review of Steve's book was singularly ineffective at
selling books, by the way.
Mark
At 11:22 PM 1/27/2008, you wrote:
>I'd rather agree with this last statement,
>even though
>and here we go
>the binary automatically stands out according to the different personalities
>we are facing, and inevitably.
>A Ronnic figure, to quote Gabe, is just so voracious in his readings that
>you cannot do as if he did not exist, besides being punctual and clear,
>dedicated and more.
>As much as Marjorie Perloff can be. They do receive my respect.
>
>On Jan 28, 2008 1:36 AM, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Gabe: "Effects" is an interesting word! These are my last effects.
> > Aesthetic
> > effects. This deeply effects me (from a Freshman essay). Mark is, as far
> > as
> > I know, out only certified psychotherapist, so I'll leave the final
> > diagnosis to him.
> >
> > Mark: I thought Gabe was trying to enlarge the field by opposing poetry to
> > people. I saw it as an attempt to undermine the binary rather than to
> > reinforce it.
> >
> > jd
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2008 7:21 PM, Gabriel Gudding <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > In reverse order.
> > >
> > > Rupert: I like the verb "diatribed" but do beg your pardon. I looked up
> > > "diatribe" and found that it's a bitter attack. There wasn't a trace of
> > > bitterness in my mind when I wrote that. I feel only great fondness
> > > toward Ron -- and would say the same thing to his face with a smile on
> > > mine. What his blog does is less a function of Ron than a function of
> > > the field. You're probably pretty correct in saying that my blog has
> > > Ronnic features.
> > >
> > > Joe: I have a thing about cheeks.
> > >
> > > Mark: I don't oppose Ron qua Ron. I oppose that approach to the field.
> > > It's not that I disagree with Ron in particular; it's that I don't
> > > believe in literature *in general*. There is nothing inherently Ronnic
> > > that I find bothersome. I see that very approach to literature (where
> > > literature is an object of fetish about which one constructs, furthers
> > > or bolsters belief) as fundamentally problematic.
> > >
> > > I see what Ron does as no different from what many others do. His
> > > particular project isn't that much different from what William Wimsatt
> > > did, or Monroe Beardsley, or Cleanth Brooks, or John Crowe Ransom. He's
> > > just using different terminology. Its effect is the same. So, there is
> > > no anti-Ron there. Just anti-fetish.
> > >
> > > Anny: I seriously doubt any fetishizing of you would have side effects!
> > > But let Joe be the judge of that.
> > >
> > > Gabe
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joseph Duemer
> > Professor of Humanities
> > Clarkson University
> > [sharpsand.net]
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Anny Ballardini
>http://annyballardini.blogspot.com/
>http://www.fieralingue.it/modules.php?name=poetshome
>http://www.moriapoetry.com/ebooks.html
>I Tell You: One must still have chaos in one to give birth to a dancing
>star!
|