Hmmm, how to respond to a pot-shot (surely your
word describes your own posting more than mine,
ie. a wild firing off of words that are only
really good for killing and maiming eg "rubbish"?)
Have you ever read John Cage's mescrostic
pieces? These are studies in that form. They do
actually articulate something expressive.I'm wondering
if you didn't just receive a jumbled version, that
didn't tally with the description at the foot of
the excerpt? You should have received words spelled
vertically in lower case intersecting with an upper case
line spelled horizontally).
The vertical words read: "ANSWER, APPROACHING
ARGUMENT ASSAILED ASUNDER..." (prescient there...)
"AT AUTHORITY AVAUNT 'BASTARD, BASTARDS, BASTINADO',
BATED BATTERING BATTERY..." (you seem bated, Scott)
"...BEFOREHAND, BEFRIEND BEGGAR BEGGARS BEGOT. BETHINK:
BETWEEN BIGOT BLEW BLOODIEST BLOODS.." And so on.
I was attempting to cast (as in rune-casting) meanings
like that, through procedures, I wasn't trying to
pot-shot letters! As a matter of fact, it took some
while to arrange them: is all concrete poetry garbage too?
I rather like the way (if the spacing hasn't mucked up on
sending) the words seem to be like cities or yachts
reflected in the upper-cased meniscus of the page-sea.
It's a method, and I don't myself find it garbage; I hope
you might not after that small explanation, Scott.
Best wishes
Ira Lightman
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:38:24 GMT Scott Milne wrote:
> From: Scott Milne <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:38:24 GMT
> Subject: Re: work-in-progress
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Could somebody, preferably the sender explain what the
significance
> lying behind the recent pile of garbage neatly disposed
upon the
> e-mail was really about?
> Taking letters at pot-shot doesn't appeal to me as
poetic, so why,
> dear friend, place it on a poetry link?
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|