On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Richard Caddel wrote:
> Keston, thanks for the real puritan fire in your destruction of the
> stanza of the work of the man who was Bruce Andrews - so soon after
> your call for this list to set aside hostility, the spirit must have
> moved from deep within you. I imagine black-smocked members of a
> notional school of Cambridge Poetry Bretheren greeting you in the
> street and saying, well-said, Brother Keston, well hast thou smitten
> the unsignifying ...
>
> And yet, I wonder, what, exactly are you accusing these lines of? Your
> reading of what's actually going on in the lines in question is, to
> say the least, sketchy (thanks to Cris for his more complete take on
> it) and your actualy criticism of them seemed to me to amount to:
>
> being playful
>
> Now I'm sure that any number of people could provide readings of
> Andrews which will save him on this count - but my question is this:
> Brother Keston, have I (yet again) misread you? is Being Playful With
> Language really something we'll burn for? because if so, there'll be
> lots of us going up in smoke, up and down the country - and perhaps
> even a few of us will do so gladly rather than stick around in the
> glum and blunted world where wordplay is a proscribed act.
>
> R
>
o come on what garbage
-read- the post Ric
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|