Just a few minutes ago I got another 13 of the weekend's messages. A few
questions, for some of their bearers:
Stephen -- I wonder if you would mind clearing up a few points?
1. How exactly is Marx a bad reader (or interpreter) of Hegel? In your
own opinion.
2. What theory does 'CamPo' rely on? Please do be specific, because at
the moment your cynicism, though pleasing, far preceeds any hint of
insight. To make the question answerable, perhaps you could refer to the
work of Prynne, Wilkinson, Drew Milne, Grace Lake, or some other poet
commonly associated with the town they live in (or once lived in). I know
this question sounds agressive, but really I'm sincere. You might not
know that Prynne (for one) has certainly read everything you refer to and
(literally) hundreds of related books, and frequently condemns the
majority of it with far greater specifity and vigour than you have.
3. You are prepared to take risks. I genuinely believe this is
commendable, and would hope to be credible in saying the same of myself.
Now: what risks does your poetry take?
Perhaps the problem is just that you don't read (eg) Prynne very well. I
cannot think of any poet in English whose work is so decisively, adamantly
and comprehensively committed to thorough social criticism.
Peter --
Isn't 'wholeness' just chicken-soup-for-the-soul 'totality'? I don't like
solo pat-a-cake any more than you do, surely by now you should see that
the charge of impersonality and defunct alienation is just not accurate,
since so many readers keep coming to and enjoying the work you stigmatize?
Perhaps your objection is very acute because very idiosyncratic?
Our difference seems to be, you prefer to glorify modest convictions where
I prefer to glorify excessive ones. Do you not see that -the style of
glorification- is necessarily different in each case? Very different
indeed?
Yes I hold that the world is at present inclined wrongly: tilted to a
nasty future perfect. Naturally I would claim neither that this means we
are free from responsibility toward single individuals, nor that there are
no redemptive or promising developments in world history. Of course not.
You resist this claim rather than the future it describes, ok. I
do respect your objection.
k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|