Keston: As I appear to be
painted with the brushes of resentment, banality and
nervous common-sensicality, let me just say that I have
an honest interest in learning about Prynne's ideas and
poetry (I've just ordered his bloody Collected for the
fourth time, this time from Peter Riley, thanks Peter).
Nate has kindly offered to provide me with some more
prose samples, and he assures me that the letter on
LP is not necessarily typical of the Great Man's prose
style. I don't pretend to be able to write anything
significant on Prynne in my present state of ignorance,
but I don't feel compelled to genuflect before anybody's
prolix obscurantism, including Prynne's, either.
I am more partial to Wittgenstein (and his risibly simple
prose style) than the orotund heirs of Hegel, but please
do favour us all with the correct 'materialist' explanation
for your peculiarly laboured idiolect and its unique
epistemological benefits. (And please do it in terms of
non-commuting operators on a Hilbert space, in other
words in quantum-mechanical terms, for that's the only
really contemporary materialism, don't you know.)
K.M. 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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|