> Keston Sutherland wrote:
>
> Does anyone here agree that
>
>
> 1. The descriptions of 'fancyspeak' here have been slight and banal,
> tending proudly to overlook historical or material explanation for
> idiomatic variety, such that a certain defensive resentment has been made
> to appear provocative where in fact it is just fear of apology.
>
> 2. The treatment of Prynne has been incoherent, characterized by robust
> blundering and quick thrills in put downs which are presented as if both
> radical and common-sensical, but which are in fact merely the nervous
> reflexes of the latter attitude.
>
>
>
> Perhaps people do not agree; I would be glad to hear any comment either
> way.
>
> Best, k
>
>
>
>
> dear Keston
>
altho' i wld agree that descriptions of 'fancyspeak' have been 'slight'
i feel that 'banal' is rather too judgemental an adjective to apply in
the context. i do not understand the latter part of yr first paragraph -
particularly the reference to 'idiomatic variety' - eh? whose idiom,
whose variety? in language that is academically bland where does that
phrase apply?
with respect to jhp - as i have posted repeatedly - tho' i regard him
as an able writer i also feel that implied claims for him made by some
of the CamPo clan are absurd - he's no Cesar Vallejo or Paul Celan - the
poems just do not 'grab' one in the way that those two writer's work can
at times.
i use those two names as examples of writers who were genuinely
'linguistically innovative'
sorry for being so simplistic, i'm only a person from birmingham
regards
david
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|