Heave-ho, Stephen I enjoy your posts too, and of course you're right that
Marx = a pair of Reeboks is a familiar conclusion when given by jaunty
academics the run around. By 'anthropological' I meant (new formula: by
'X' I meant -- should come in handy I anticipate) nothing of the abstruse
kind you hint at, o no, but simply that your account of the popularly
diminished responsibility in claiming Marxist sympathies had an
anthropological bent -- that is, you present the results of knowing a
group of people and what happened to them. I.e., my friends did this:
ergo, what they did is of this nature, &c. It was a good post.
There has in fact been a little confusion Ric, quite possibly because Lee
Harwood had figured in an earlier post and so did spring to mind, but I
really didn't pick him out for any reason other than to imply a segue from
our earlier CCCP debate. Let me rephrase my question. What function does
Peter Riley's poetry serve, in the State?
My review of Lee's reading was quite as cursory and occasional as all my
other reviews. It was a conference. I listened to readings. I gave my
impressions. Several responses to this have materialized:
1. That I am claiming implicitly an 'authority', and that this is damaging
to the prospects of free and tolerant discussion.
2. That the negativity of my review of Lee Harwood's reading at CCCP
necessitates that I justify it, by more elaborate reference to Lee
Harwood's published poetry.
3. That I am offering a view of the conference distorted by a critical
predilection characterized by over-subscription to the ideas of Adorno and
Leavis.
I hope that this summary is fair, and clear.
Perhaps if anyone believes that one or some of these three responses are
at all reasonable or important, they could state why.
For example: Peter, could you please explain, since it is an imputation
that has been tossed around here quite frequently, exactly what you mean
by suggesting that my posts are determined by Adorno? Perhaps you could
identify some correspondence between his ideas and mine.
Ric, do you not believe that it is hysterical to claim that my views are
Maoist, and that they issue in visions of the state police kicking down
doors to remove copies of 'non-innovative' poetry books? Or have you
decided to 'side with' Peter?
Please don't think that I mean to insult anyone here. Generally I leave
the terminal feeling anxious and even unhappy, but I trust that this is a
personal failing, and that we all recognise that our discussion here is
impersonally relevant.
Thanks to you Pete for your responses to my post. I must run now, but
will try to reply shortly.
Take care Britons.
Safe and sound, k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|