And still my question: what do you want to edit in
or out, and what effect do you think it will have?
Are you trying to do anything? What's the point of
your anger? Are you hoping that by sharing your being
hacked off, others will realize (as happens in sharing)
they are hacked off, and things will change? to what?
Just because it is not said, or even a clear thought
in the head, where everyone can have a mirror of
hackedoffedness to show back, who says that the mind of
others (I assume you're trying to affect these to
effect change) accepts "the same old tawdry money
associations"; maybe they blink, maybe they blank.
Everyone is reluctant to start, it's hard to open
to anything (many have shown what I see as close
mindedness to Language Writing without even having
the book in the hand and stopping at the cover);
if there is a start, if a person I meet has at
least read some McSweeney, then that person and
I have a starting point for conversation; where
I might see that person's point and that person
see mine. I want to know who buys McSweeney
because of the cover and why, because that's
where we are, and where we are is the starting
point. Being "correct" isn't.
Ira
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:39:24 -0500 (EST) Keston Sutherland
wrote:
> From: Keston Sutherland <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:39:24 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Re: Mainstream/Pound/Ric&Peter
> To: Ira Lightman <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: british n irish poets <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
>
> The possibility of being "above the colloquialism" that is
the initial,
> stratified exposure of books (or films), whilst a sign of
personal
> awareness, can hardly be an argument in tentative favour
of that exposure;
> I may go and see a film (on whatever basically unrelated
impulse), the
> adverts for which hacked me off no end, and may even like
it - still, I
> see no reason either to be patient with such adverts (to
'move beyond'
> them) or to claim their dismissal/acceptance as a kind of
tolerance.
> They're just c. The rear blurb on
> Macsweeney continues to get me agitated (whenever I happen
to read it,
> which is of course increasingly rarely), as do holiday
snaps of poets with
> Gauloises Blondes and whiskey bottles etc, I see no reason
why they
> shouldn't.
>
> Though I agree, it is good marketing. I'd just enunciate
that
> slightingly.
>
> Keston
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|