Stephen,
>I find a certain complacency on this list --
>and many gross assumptions about what we think is good and bad. Since the
>list has quite a number of members --it is surprising that only a few
>venture out into cyberspace.
As to the few list-members posting these days, that may well be a
function of the academic holidays (or just holidays in general). Those of
us not aestivating (fancy? exact? neither? both?) are probably the few
with relatively easy access to the net from work or home, though there
are, of course, many lurkers.
On the matter of the complacency which you claim to recognize on the
list, the gross assumptions: on the contrary, I would have thought it was
evident even from very recent postings that the list is far from a
mutual-admiration-society. Perhaps you would care to enumerate these
gross assumptions, so that list-members other than yourself and David B
(whom, for some obscure reason, I find I really *must* mention) can
identify themselves in your representation, and resign themselves to a
perpetual complacency?
>Perhaps they just hit the delete button ...but
>it would be interesting to find out what are the constituencies for each
>"camp". Those who go for the adjectival approach and the "fly in amber" and
>the others who believe there is more to poetry than polishing pretty
>baubles. So let us hear from those on the list.
You might hear more if you cared to expand on your "adjectival approach
and the 'fly in amber'". Surely you're not trying to set up a private and
exclusive jargon of your own? A virtual "Cambridge" of two?
>I am glad by the way that
>Trevor has acknowledged our differences.
Reread the archive, and you will find many writers acknowledging many
differences.
Cheers,
Trevor
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|