-----Original Message-----
差出人 : pain <[log in to unmask]>
宛先 : <[log in to unmask]>
日時 : 1999年7月17日 9:15
件名 : RE: twit twit jug jug
>Richard,
>
>Close readings are fine, this is what one finds in Bible reading
groups --if
>a number on the list have a predilection for a particular poet, it makes
>sense that they should collect together in a grouping, like the Prinnies
>have done, however it is unfair to impose these enthusiasms upon others who
>do not share the same taste. Because in the end it is a matter of taste on
>why we decide to read one poet or another. The consensus of most of the
>postings seems to be in favour of establishing such a circle. If I for
example
>said that I would like to have close readings of Tom Pickard's
>poetry --would there be the same enthusiasm? I doubt it. Unlike you I have
>read most of the readings of Prynne's poetry, and yes some have been
>insightful, but many have been indulgent. I suggest that either the circle
>go sub -- or
>they clearly label their offerings with Prynne in parentheses "blah, blah
>(Prynne) and this will help also with the archiving so those who wish to
>follow the thread and close readings can easily do so.
> Regarding the notion of close reading. This again is similar to Bible
>exegesis --and though one might find "gems" one also might find a lot of
old
>potatoes.
>I countered this complacency, this "knowingness" based upon half digested
>theory, because ultimately I find it suffocating. I think the idea that
>there is a "shallow end" and a "deep end" interesting, but condescending,
>enforcing the idea that initiates or converts know best.
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|