forwarding this from that lurker on the list that Douglas announced. He's
no lurker, has been here often, is widely knowlegeable about and supportive
of British poets. The message speaks for itself.

>Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:46:39 -0400
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>To: cris cheek <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Keith Tuma <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Jeremy Hester Prynne
>
>Hi cris--
>
>At the office now and can't read e very regularly as the home modem is in
>the shop. I tried to post something to the brit-list in response to
>Clark's proposition that "We British" have a more "nuanced" sense of,
>appreciation for, the "language" than "Americans" do. Don't know why this
>pisses me off so--rough week and all, just failed a student on an PhD exam
>etc.--but it does. I suppose the fact that Clark's so obviously
>self-satisfied in his status as what Chinese-Americans sometimes call an
>"old fut" might have smething to do with it. Or my own work. Anyway I
>e-mailed him and asked him if he imagined that he was speaking for all the
>British and then asked if it would be "unnuanced" and "American" of me to
>tell him that he's " full of shit." Somehow the message to the larger list
>doesn't seem to have gone through.
>
>It's exactly this essentializing of national identity that stands in the
>way of real movement and possibility in a variety of arts, and for British
>poetry too. While I understand where such anti-Americanism comes from and
>have pondered its more or less acknowledged rationales and reasons,
>legitimate and otherwise--or at least I've written some 100 pages on this--
>I'm very tired of it. Depressing to have to read it on the chat-line.
>I'll be away from e for 30 hours or so and would appreciate a chance to
>have the matter clarified if it arises again. Or you might simply pass all
>or part of this on.
>
>and hope you're well too, other news soon, etc.
>
>best,
>Keith

--------------

Agree strongly with what keith says re the essentialising of national
identity. The suggestion that the English or British know the English
language best, is one kid patronisingly allowing another to play with its
toy, knowing that the 'other' can never play so skillfully. In many
respects, I'd suggest that it is the English who understand less howto move
the language forwards than do writers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
Hawaii, the USA, Jamaica and so forth.

Can add that an acs needs to be added into his e-dress for mail to get through.
so - [log in to unmask]

Douglas the quip > Lovely people these Americans.

won't do on many counts, including the lumping of everyone on a huge
continent into under one homogenising nomen. Only thing i'd say on the
e-dresses is, how are radical United States netizens going to address the
implication of suprematist imperialism in their e-dresses? That is, being
the only 'nationals' who don't have to identify their 'origin' because that
was where the system was initiated? Keith, this isn't aimed at you, but the
many yous who don't have that triumphal consciousness. It's a di(a)sparity
that has bugged cc since me was ever here. Needs addressing.

love and love
cris




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%