Robin!

I'd been expecting you. You're almost late . . .

Peter Riley's post on Friday was both clear and salutary, I thought, and
it articulated much of what lay implicit in my own attitude which seems
unexamined by comparison, and not entirely innocent of the fuzziness he
describes. He exemplifies also a patience I haven't yet mastered.

> About Keston and Trevor's disagreement, my own unhappy
>experiences along the same lines tell me that all the sex is
>probably occurring backchannel at the moment but you would
>expect me to point out that I don't think Trevor DID explain how the
>qualities of being hifalutin, dull, polysyllabic, inward-looking,
>complacent &c. advertise their reliance on a substantial bank
>account, as opposed to Keston's lucidly proposed idea of an
>institutionally-endorsed leisure activity more often than not divorced
>from any considerable private funds. Trevor may think that his own
>position is self-evidently true and Keston's is self-evidently self-
>defeating: not to me it isn't. If, on the other hand, he thinks he did
>explain the connection, perhaps he could summarise his points for
>those of us slow on the uptake? Just to clear up any confusion.
While trying to avoid seeming to arrogate any of Peter's careful argument
to myself, I hope he'll allow me quote one statement for greater clarity,
and to avoid the reintroduction of red herrings: "no one suggested for a
moment that anyone's bank balance had anything to do with it, with the
review or Cambridge or "Cambridge poetry" whatever that is." I certainly
made no such association myself, but was just amused at the way Keston
made crude his own elaborate language when pleading lack of money.
Lucidly denying a point that hasn't been made in a manner supporting the
stereotype is a neat trick, I feel, displaying the hand of a master.

>In the meantime, the performance involved in the phrase
>"assuming, for the moment, that your mail isn't deliberate self-
>parody" pretends to refer back to a fictional stage where the status
>of Keston's remarks were in doubt, while making the gesture of
>Trevor's assumption a generous one and continuing to indicate but
>not argue that Keston's post is obviously bogus, (why, you only
>have to look at it).
Your sharp analytical mind has cut straight to the quick here, Robin. I
must completely and unreservedly withdraw this remark to Keston, and beg
his indulgence and forgiveness. It was unworthy of me, or so, at least, I
hope. Having once been rapped over the knuckles by him for having seemed
to suggest he had perpetrated a joke when in fact he hadn't, I realise
now my error in ever having attributed a sense of humour to him, and will
be diligent in avoiding recurrence in the future. But thank you, Robin,
for having handled me so gently in this most embarrassing time,
particularly in view of the unhappy sexual experiences you refer to. I am
grateful to find my own sensitivity to language, so essential for the
writing of verse, suitably heightened by your incomparable example. Why,
you only have to look at it!

>A paragraph from another of Trevor's posts
>communicates his own exasperation to be done with a discussion
>that Keston is prolonging for his own narcissistic pleasure, when, if
>he and I are right that Trevor's 'attempts to make clear' and 'points
>already dealt with' refer to a lacuna, an argument that never
>happened, Keston is merely insisting, as is his right, on a subject
>being deliberated thoroughly for once.
And Keston is certainly quite correct in this, and I fully support, and
would indeed encourage, his right to deliberate these issues thoroughly
for once. My only consolation in relation to my earlier posts is that
Keston was evidently very little distracted by actually reading them.
Please feel free to draw to his attention my application of Peter Riley's
words in an earlier paragraph. Since they clarify the relationship
between 'money', 'poetry', and 'connection' in this discussion better
than I seem to have achieved, I'll rely on them rather than introduce
more material for confusion.

Now, back to the corporate grindstone . . .

With appropriate gratitude,

Trevor








%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%