Dear Robin,
Yes, an embarrassed rush to consensus is quite accurate. Good to
remember: the modes and struck poses of these backs-and-forths are still,
as ever, partly a question of politeness. Nothing wrong with a bit of
sociable reflexiveness, for the time being. But: perhaps wearisome that
what was actually a fleshed-out dialogue (if a bit emaciated) ends up as a
spatter of one-liners. Of course, time's precious and "it's crap" is
funnier than a fuller reference. If the discussion weren't getting a bit
arid of inbox, I'd want to retort and remind you what I actually said.
However, I'd go along with your argument about interpretation/the adequacy
of normative prose. Actually the proses sometimes seem more than
adequate, having later to jettison their claim-surplus. Can we also
remember the question of taste, on a limb I'd remark that it's perfectly
viable to have been thoroughly bored by language poetry (yes, the poetry),
to have gnashed one's critical faculties and to have relinquished whatever
interest was initially aroused. This doesn't mean that such a reader is
barred from commenting, it doesn't even mean that the comments made will
be any less interesting or important (though of course they may be).
That's a great thing about boredom, it'd have vexed Descartes no end - it
can cause and create interest. If only the ardent - those who have been
willing to persevere with reading the poetry - should properly talk about
LP, it's a rigged ratrace. I know, dilettantism. But as any politically
cognisant LP would presumably acknowledge, that's the larger environment;
inexpert positions are not exclusively negative, but can be actively
pursued in synchronicity with the pursuit of differing expertise. "I
chose this and not that" is not exactly "I chose this rather than that".
k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|