On Thu, 6 May 1999, K.M. Sutherland wrote:
> Ric you seem agitated.
- well, a little, perhaps, that in spite of several askings you're still
fluffing the request for DETAIL re Lee Harwood. But from what you say
(below) it appears you may be modifying your position? Damned if I know...
> Peter, can you really
> exaggerate my argument so flagrantly, I might almost say hysterically?
- I didn't find Peter hysterical. If he's hysterical, and I'm agitated,
what does that make your "4-point plan"? "la-di-da", as you say, let's
call the whole (personal) thing off.
> When I asked, what is Lee Harwood's function in the state? I might
> similarly have said this of Prynne, Wilkinson, myself, anyone.
- indeed so. But the context in which you asked the question was, as some
saw it, critical of Lee's CCCP performance - which again, is a view you're
quite entitled to, if you're prepared to support it. But I'm still looking
for some substance here. Or are you now saying, hey, no, man, I was just
asking a question, no harm in that eh...
> I'll pay my debt of clarity soon. But Ric: what's all this "WE DON'T HAVE
> TO PUT UP WITH TURGID PROSE"? Funny -- if I substitute POETRY for prose
> here, surely you'll be up in arms?
- no, we don't have to suffer turgid poetry either - life's too short. If
you're confusing TURGID with DIFFICULT, of course, you shouldn't.
Difficulty can obviously be justified in any writing, and as you know I'm
a firm believer in Zukofsky-quoting-Einstein to the effect of "Everything
in the Universe should be as simple as possible - but not simpler." I
still think your prose can make some concessions towards necessary
simplicity.
Here's hoping!
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|