Mark --

I take your point of course, and respect that you make it having seen
evidence that would convince you both of its accuracy -and- value. You
begin to mention the further problem of -quality- in language-use, though
you would defer elaborating that part of the question, as if it were an
extremity. But really it seems to me that this is where the problem
lies in fact, and centrally -- -not- because the privilege of the lauded
poets should be guarded against the claims (by proxy or otherwise) of
those without any theorized vocational interest or 'talent', but because
the issue of quality is what determines just how arbitrary the whole
question must be. And of course it -must- be, I think that's inevitable.
The issue of quality determines this also; and it is an inevitable issue.
So that the real question seems to be: -whose- disposition leads
them to support the view that this capability is universal, and -whose-
leads them to think otherwise? In this way, one tangent of the
sociological purview of literary labour is pegged to metaphysics, and
thank god: if Mr. X-Data says so and so, with the sum of his
particular perks and pains, how additionally does he (and do they) bear on
the issue of quality in language-use? And in this question they must,
it's rigged that way. In asking this I'd wish not to feed in any straight
answer, merely to point out that it has not always been thought (by
writers and others) that Parnassus is -essentially- an icon for late
twentieth century western liberal capitalist ideas about fundamental
equality of opportunity, or even some presentiment of this
(Rousseau-style, maybe); and nor need it always be. I.e., the question
has a string of aspects, all historically stage-managed. The opposite
view is some kind of monetarist theology, isn't it: they thought
differently back in 1740 (eg that tinkers couldn't write pindaric odes),
but we can now say absolutely that because of insufficient enlightenment
they were deceived? That their hearts would have been more free and open,
had there been fewer ideological tariffs --
I suppose I believe that it's better to recognize the absence of a
capability and to consider this either the withdrawal of opportunity (not
in any metaphysical sense, but economically and by persons) or the
repression of intention (ditto), than to suppose that capability latent
or as-yet-unexpressed; the former view seems to me more positively
diagnostic, even if it means sharing uneasily in the default honours that
we as poets would therefore toss ourselves implicitly. As perhaps we do
anyhow.
                  

k





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%