Cris,
ok
I'm clear on carnivalesque
confirmed to some extent and clarified the rest
shall go back and reread I think because some more has come in
whether i have anything to say or not then - who knows
.
now I understood "niche communities" only too well. That's why I expressed
unease.
I went back to my original and found that I didn't help you by typing an
associated word rather than the word I intended - inattention
I said:
.
May I also express concern with "niche communities". My experience of the
word "niche" comes from usage which does not make it to the level of
discourse before it starts rationalising from the fixtures, fittings and
foundations of language in order to maximise income for some entity always
absent. We should be careful of such words; we don't know where they've
been.
.
I meant "rationalising away" - as when one business buys another only to
trash it - economies of scale etc which is why there is no bank at the
bottom of my hill anymore and why the only fresh fish shop is miles away
.
but big corps are also capable as I meant to say of rationalising away the
fixtures, fittings and foundations of language in order to maximise income
for some entity always absent.
.
Now your use of niche is to some extents restorative - Ive never known you
destroy language the way the corporates do, though you play rough with it -
carnivalesque play no doubt
.
but I repeat my warning. you can clean these words up but maybe they'll
still smell the discussion out even with the windows open - your
"communities of interest" is a conflation - yes we are interested in poetry
and poetics but for some / many of us it is as strong an interest as a moth
feels for light and different to other "interests" in that - the other use
of interest, the word, is economic interest, and that often runs - it is /
is not in our interest therefore ethics are overturned to change it.
.
community fine. I live in a fragmented one.
.
market fine. I like 'em, from Dubrovnik to Helston.
.
but communities on the net, for instance, may be "homesteaders" and
"netizens", engineered communities whose purpose is inimical to ours
.
A lot of what you say CAN be argued. I won't rehearse it here because you
are clear and you have a case. But only to a point.
.
I express unease... I hope you're trying to stir it up. You're good at that.
But be careful. Crap *is useful. Usually it's best to cover it up - I'd be
inclined to shove it in a specialised recess myself - and let it break down
a bit. Then one uses it sparingly with gloves on. The result isn't more
crap, but something utterly different. What it produces can cross-polinate,
but the crap can't. It has its own tricks of course - fatal diseases
.
yes, we can talk about loyalty cards etc etc but that is the point of view
beyond the imposed niche - we don't choose the niche, that's the corporate
view which, remember, keeps declaring we have reached the end of history,
democratisation, my backside if that's the issue until it sees that letting
go a bit will enable it to grab hold harder, like a security guard changing
his grip - cctv installed for your comfort and security - welcome to the
carnival, please wait until the police have taken up their positions (at
2.17 p m one of them will remove his helmet to show we're all in it
together)
.
but be careful of using the corporate outlook: you may, as some of us were
told when we were young, get stuck like it... just as, having mentioned
Dubrovnik, it is more human if more dangerous to be the sniped at than the
sniper... if I am put in a marketing niche I am going to be targeted - I
have always thought spam is crap
L
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|