Yes, Ric, I get asked for it a good deal at the PL for VVV, and recommend
it, when asked the "what-is-concrete/visual-poetry" type question. It IS an
important document for this Library, where some of the Writers Forum titles
were either never acquired in the first place or have since gone missing. .
. .
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: R I Caddel <[log in to unmask]>
To: Michael Gardiner <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: british n irish poets <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 26 June 1998 02:43
Subject: Re: Slots of diffident huff
>Has he gone? Can we start answering his questions now?
>
>On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Michael Gardiner wrote:
>> when I briefly coedited Angel Exhaust, one of Andrew Duncan's typically
>> ascerbic reviews was of the collection Verbi Visi Voco ...
>> none of it tried to make a counter-case for VVV as
>> a book with a point ...
>
>- if that's true I find it very sad: VVV (as its title should suggest) was
>never intended to be a book with *A* point - it addressed so many
>different modes of writing that it had, in effect, many pointlets. But if
>one wanted to be reductive, surely we could say the main points were (a)
>look at the staggering range, diversity and achievement of this _partial_
>record of Cobbing Publishing Industries Inc - can you do anything like it,
>Mr Faber? Of course you can't, and (b) look at the staggering r, d, and a
>of the writings presented herein, it makes you think, dunnit? And if it
>doesn't, what's it like not having brains?
>
>> But the book was
>> truly dreadful - fiddling with typeset and layout about 30 years too
late,
>> it only put you in mind of beardy guys in tanktops listening to
>> scratched Led Zeppelin records surrounded by half-empty cider bottles.
>
>- how style-obsessed the very young are these days, how terrified of
>touching anything which may be found to be uncool. I'm sure I don't have
>to spell out why VVV was produced as it was, and why the application of
>external or unifying design criteria would have been a travesty, like a
>steak bar at a vegan convention. If respect for writers' patiently evolved
>practices is going to get reduced to "fiddling with typeset and layout"
>there's not much one can say except, did you *read* it?
>
>> Some quality control was desperately needed. People were putting a lot of
>> energy into writing and producing books but there was no quality control,
>> no critical community, only a loose collection of people.
>
>- I'm sure this is spoof, the voice of the cod-fascist: "zer vass kein
>ORGANIZATION: it took der GREAT LEADER to giff us QVALITY KONTRAUL...".
>It's my belief/hope that in all developmental activities one throws out
>quickly and gladly the concept of unity-of-purpose, in favour of
>diversity, of breadth of research, and I would have thought it evident
>to even the most casual outsider that VVV was, in many ways, a record of
>some strands of research: not all successful, and not all still current,
>to be sure - but research, which people who profess interest in change
>ignore at their peril. As for the other point: "a loose collection
>of people" is exactly what the community WAS, and in many ways still is.
>Anyone looking for the secret signs, the funny handshakes which prove
>we're all in The Movement is in for a shock. VVV reflected the work of
>individuals, and if you ain't interested in individuals, well, you're in
>for a hard and inexpressibly dull life.
>
>Could someone supply the bibliographic referencing / ordering information
>for VVV? I don't hold it to be the finest thing in the world, but it's of
>lasting value in ways which a wealth of "critical community" would never
>be and I bet there's people out there who'd like it...
>
>RC
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|