Chris, you totally misunderstand me. If you read what I wrote in On
Lyric, we are saying virtually identical things. I wholly agree that
lyric is not a "category". And where the hell did I accuse you of
being in breach of anything?
As for Gluck, Cooper and Sedgwick, I can't speak about them because
haven't read them. (I could talk about Genet, one of my favourite
writers - and a condiserable lyricist imho - because I have read him,
but you haven't mentioned him.) Being unaware of her work is
presumably why you've equally ignored my mention of Desbordes... I'm
taking the generous attitude and assuming it's not because you're a
horrible misogynist or hate the French?
And there I was, thinking we were getting somewhere in understanding
each other...Never mind.
xA
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Christopher C Jones
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The other question that needs to be addressed is why are the examples
> that I have already given being ignored. To give three names I have
> already given, Robert Gluck, Dennis Cooper and Sedgwick, who is also a
> poet as well as a theorist and teacher.
>
> Is it because they deal with explicitly homosexual themes and as such
> are excluded from the categories of lyric and novel which both Alison
> and Doug are insisting on as complying with moral law which dictates the
> categories and their legitimate use and as such are considered not to be
> lyric poets and novel writers.
>
> This is a very real question. I am not using rhetoric here. But since I
> have been set up in front of a tribunal by both Doug and Alison and
> accused of being in breach of the correct use of the term lyric, to
> which I very accurately replied I have nothing to admit, this is a
> question of most explicit urgency. Why do both Doug and Alison insist
> that I do not have the right to explain what I consider lyric to be and
> demand, upholding Kantian moral law in doing so, that I comply with a
> categorical standard which assumes as a writer I am heterosexual. Again,
> this is a real question. However, since it is more then apparent that I
> am denied the right to speak, even after giving examples, then the
> situation becomes one that as I see I have the right to both demand an
> apology and to cease this discussion.
>
--
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
|