>. There was a sense, after all the crying for women to post, of
> a scrambling for the gates as the barbarain hordes flooded in.
>
> Alison
>
> Home Page: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/bronte/338
> Masthead online: http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/5662
>
> Alison Croggon
> PO Box 186
> Newport VIC 3015
> Australia
Yes. It was a bit odd. An open invitation then all this small print once
people got on board. I don't see how the list's stated aim of discussing
exaltovative poets precludes the discussion of estreaditionment writing.
(BTW has anyone got the address of the assay office which, for a small fee,
will conclusively rule as to which camp any given poet belongs?) And the
criticism of Chris Emery's wild reading post, that it was assertion, not
argument, despite the fact that he quoted generously, allowing the reader
to come to their own decision, was strangely legalistic. Where did all
these powdered wigs come from? Said critic, Lawrence Upton then allowed
_himself_ the liberty of quoting a line from a poet and responding simply
"gawd". Now I'm all for this approach, and many other approaches, but felt
it it to be unfair in a post charging someone with assertion. Can you
really have the cake and the ha'penny too if you're asserting that someone
else can't?
Then there was all this pure/contaminated stuff which, for all the jazzy
name dropping, seems to belong on the same shelf as phrenology. As I sit
here , printing from my deskjet, folding, hand sewing and trimming (steel
rule and craft knife) booklets for Wild Honey Press, it occurs to me that
I should say that I'm not pure, just in case anyone sends me a manuscript
thinking otherwise. I never was. It's not even on my list of broken
resolutions. No one who wears shoes and has access to a g.p. is pure.
Whatever.
Come on the barbarians!
Randolph Healy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|