My mailbox went into rehab for a day or so, now there's so much to respond
to I'll hardly know where to start. Very interesting stuff I think,
perhaps I could just address one of your questions cris that points out
accurately how my position was unclear.
I do not mean to suggest that 'Tizzy Boost' could be the precipitating
instance of any Pentagon initiative, not currently in the business of
fancying up that kind of idea. I do feel however that the popular
insistence on creditable misrecognition, in reaction to the possibility
that 'meaning' might be homologous with fetishistic parts of quotidian
life ('meaning is mean' as Rod Smith put it), is an insistence -propitious
for- rather than -adverse to- the world-view that those government
initiatives support. That is, the desire to enjoy misunderstanding (or to
prohibit understanding) is a kind of affliction for the possibility of
consensual adversity. Because it makes the reading process -private-; it
privatizes the resources and values of exegesis. I think these resources
and values ought to be public, or even national. I think we ought to be
able to agree finally and importantly about the specifying power of a
text. Much L poetry seems to jeopardize this prospect by its insistence
on the social value of 'inspecifying', or 'despecifying', to butter a new
term.
I do not want the world to be despecified now.
This is a problem I have with many poets, not just Bruce Andrews. It just
seemed that someone ought to criticize his approach without resorting to
an attack on his show of political incorrectness.
Good to hear so many interesting views on this.
Best to all, k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|