I'm at least as sick of the sight of my own pixels as every other
present, so signing off for a spell to recharge and hopefully return
lithium grease enhanced not to break under heat stress.
But finally: "poetry's Rab C. Nesbitt" would like to point out that
if he uses a word like 'fucking' in an e-mail, it's because he uses
it when he speaks, and he writes it as he speaks it, in an entirely
unemphatic way. Middle-class English literary critics of James Kelman's
novels and short stories have made the same mistake, and written him
off as the novel's Rab C. Nesbitt. If this usage contributed to the
responses of Ric and of Randoph (the "testosterone" remark) then I
suppose I can understand that: you would have had to talk to me
face-to-face to be sure I wasn't shouting.
My original point, such as it is, still teeteringly stands, re: 'open' and
'closed' responses: a verdict was contradicted, and a whole approach
was dismissed, instead of being disputed; a listmember's charged and
eloquent prose was dismissed as "turgid," instead of its content
being disputed; another post of mine, weak as it was, was not
disputed - I was trashed. Hey, Ric, I won't say I've "heard you
described" as the perpetrator of these heinous acts: you are that
man. In the name of pluralism and openness: ain't love grand?
I'll remain a subscriber 'til Tuesday afternoon, to allow the right
of reply should it be taken up.
all best
robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|