On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Ken Edwards wrote:
> AND, for the record, I don't see anything wrong either with constructing
> "alternative canons". Dammit, why should them other bastards have all the
> firepower?
- the problem with canons, of all sorts, is that they close response: they
make it more difficult to come to a Robert Adamson or a Lee Harwood or a
Lavinia Greenlaw or a Ken Edwards reading with an open mind. We probably
all like to think we "take the necessary precautions", that our critical
missiles are smart enough to avoid bad weather collateral, but they ain't.
15% error rate in even the smartest, under prime conditions, I read, and
that ain't good enough.
> Sorry, I know this contravenes the prevailing "pluralism is good" orthodoxy
> of this list.
- Has "pluralism is good" really attained orthodoxy status, here or
anywhere else? I'd like to think so, but I just don't see it. I'd settle
for "pluralism is civil and a first step along the hard road to greater
understanding and openness" but I do recognise that it lacks a certain
catchiness.
> Well, mine's quite a pluralistic canon.
- yup, and I for one admire you for it. Don't you just hate it when you're
at one of these literary events and find yourself next to someone with a
rigid canon? It's so antisocial...
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|