On Mon, 3 Nov 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I'm glad for a trip-delayed affirmation of Marjorie's gendering of current
> Language Poetry practicitioners from Cris, though it chokes up an odd
> reaction: there was no female confirmation of this message (I think).
> Indeed aside from the occasional two cents from Marjorie and Karlien,
> neither _regular_ contributors to this forum, there's a striking absence on
> this list, which no one had the self-irony to notice even in debates about
> the politics of marketing lectures and readings: the women won't come, it
> seems, even to this electronic party, and if so not loudly (myself
> included). I have no idea why. Certainly the reports on women poets,
> though not by _themselves_, are useful and not insignificant in
> approaching some gender polity. They don't replace the real thing,
> nonetheless, which is why the debate about gendering writing seems so
> artificial and _corrected_ at this location. Neither do I offer myself as a
> candidate lecturer. So without advice or diagnosis I pay my lip service
> back.
>
Hi Andrea! Repeated your message. Lucy Sheerman is writing up (nearly
finished) her PhD on Language Poetry and women poets. Should I have, for
form's sake, shouted 'hear hear' to Marjorie's insight when I know Lucy
has devoted several years of academic study to what has been supposedly
ignored. Indeed, by whom? By those engaged in this belated, but not
historicised, discussion?
So my response to Marjorie's point was to tell Lucy about the discussion
list and what was happening on it, hinting that it would be good if she
joined.
Lucy won't come to the electronic party yet, and perhaps she too feels a
certain ironical detachment about people who offer themselves as
'candidate lecturers'. It is not up to me to report on her work,
but I think she will give a paper at the Postmodern Poetry Conference next
Spring.
Anyway, I am glad you gave me the opportunity to mention this.
Karlien
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|