My wife and I are getting ready for an audit of her home business, so I
can't respond in any detail. (Louise makes traditional over the shoulder
slings and tie dyes. )
Just to say that I think Lawrence Upton's raises some very interesting
questions. The role of the aims of the list, canotomies, the twists of
tolerance, acceptable levels of rigour, all marvellously unstable
compounds.
(I must sound like a quaker with all the full name stuff. It's something to
do with if we're "all" on first name terms it can be a bit excluding for
newcomers. Alison Croggon has an elegant solution by signing off as Alison
and then you get the full particulars in the signature file at the end.)
And re Doug Oliver's marvellous list, what has to happen to canon-casters
in order to make them incapable of enjoying so many of these poets?
Finally, why the silence re this grenade?
--On Sun, 23 May 1999 9:44 AM +0300 "Karen Alkalay-Gut"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What I am suggesting is that part of the problem with understanding and
> valuing women's poetry may not be sexism, but the lack of a key to the
> language, strategies and goals of the individual poets.
>From Tracy: yes, exactly; though that lack may also arise from a sexist
attitude.
I heard somewhere that there were ructions over Wendy Mulfords afterword
to Maggie O'Sullivans anthology "Out of Everywhere" (Reality Street 1996).
which could be considered to give even the most testosterone sodden reader
a fighting chance of learning something about such language, strategies and
goals? Why the upset, if there was any? Any of you paengnostics care to
join a few dots on this?
Back to the ledgers
Randolph Healy
Visit the Sound Eye website at:
http://indigo.ie/~tjac/sound_eye_hme.htm
----------
> From: Lawrence Upton. <[log in to unmask]>
> To: British Poets <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Wild illegal opinion
> Date: 23 May 1999 11:54
>
> From: pain <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 23 May 1999 08:01
> Subject: Relaxed
>
> |Lawrence you should learn to
> |relax more
>
> Yes, I should. My doctor agrees. But I am trying - I just typed drying -
> to give up the alcoholic excess, which is how I think Marvin did it.
>
> |Surely what is written in these
> |exchanges of ours is not meant to be read as a legal document or even
> |vaguely academic.
>
> Randolph is the only one to have mentioned the law before you. Nor do
> academics, even vague academics, have copyright on logical connection.
It's
> useful for all discussion.
>
> |I for one I delight in the fact that he
> |has gone to all the trouble of typing out excerpts for us. We live in a
> |soundbite culture, and often that is all we have time for -- if we want
> more
> |then we can go and buy the book or look for a copy in the library.
>
> Well, I took no delight. LOTS of people take a lot of trouble here, and
when
> it is useful to me I take pleasure in it, am grateful etc. In this case,
> though I did pay attention to it, I didn't find it useful. I did not mean
> to cause anyone offence. I am sure it didn't please Chris that I
objected.
> When Randolph took me to task I was less than overjoyed, for instance.
(I'm
> more sensitive than you may know.) But how are we going to learn from
each
> other unless we listen to each other's reactions, positive and negative?
>
> I paid attention to Randolph. He has a point about the welcome mat.
(Always
> happy to learn Irish customs.) There is no point in having no discussion;
> there is no point in discussion if we may not disagree. Yes, I could have
> done it more politely and I regret, Chris, that I didn't. I was
irritated. I
> should relax.
>
> There was a second list came in... I think it was Randolph too who raised
> the question of classification, because I had quoted the list's aims
then.
> And he has a point, a good one, to some extent an unanswerable one.
> Nevertheless, I felt that we were clearly straying... No need to be
> legalistic or academic (a savage and debatable state in which I rarely
find
> myself) to tell that
>
> Those aims use the term "post-modern" and I hate the term...
>
> I felt a little as though I was being buttonholed. Chap drove his fingers
> into my arm on the tube the other day to get my attention and said he was
> going to talk about Jesus. I had a mild version of the feeling I had
then.
> My neighbours can go from any subject whatever to the nature of J's love
in
> two moves; and it's quite disorienting. You think: but that's not what
we're
> talking about.
>
> I agree about being welcoming, or rather not being welcoming. Chris
Emery's
> no newcomer. Nor was I the only one to object to the list - Keston was
quite
> cogent about his objections. But we should try to be welcoming *and
should
> take the trouble to pay attention to what the list is about.
>
> Where has this idea come from that Bloodaxe is adventurous?
>
> Must go. Nearly midday and I am still nakked.
>
> L
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|