Hi all,
I feel it necessary, like Ken and Chris, to question the immediate
labelling of Keston and John.W's comments as 'canon-building' - as John.
W indicates, the question here is the degree of authority being claimed
for your words - neither he nor Keston claimed such, but rather simply
stated their personal opinions, taking great care to highlight their
subjective/limited/necessarily biased etc. nature when doing so. And
yes, I happen to agree with much of what they said. I too, for example,
on a first hearing without having read the texts, found Adamson's
projection of Self both textually, and in his reading of them, intrusive
- maybe on reading the texts I'll feel differently, maybe not...
but surely any over-determining of these kind of views threatens to make
less visible any actual canon-building that others may practise -
elsewhere and here (Anthony Lawrence's unsupported 'one of the finest
lyrical poets of our age' remark goes by without comment I notice). It
seems to me those making such a charge with reference to K & J's posts
probably do so because they disagree with the opinions being offered. If
that is the case, then it is they who are adopting the mask of authority
by making such accusations instead of simply arguing for their own
differing views; to engage in the kind of debate Keston originally
called for - let's hear them
surely here we should be attempting to reserve a space for language
unburdened as far as possible by reachings after any kind of Truth-
status - especially at the present time when such abuse of words is
being megaphoned from so many orifices of Authority to further
legitimise their juvenile actions. It is only then that the rigorous
pluralism that I hope I hear you calling for Ric, can be approached
& now Soho, Jeeez
rob.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|