Trevor: your quotes don't illustrate your points, the tone of your message
is more smug and dismissive by far than any strand of this discussion
could reasonably have encouraged. What you imply was supposed to be a
joke of mine of course wasn't. This whole jibing and waiving disposition
seems a kind of botched resentment. I didn't begin the line on 'Cambridge
poets', if you recall: Peter Riley did, I merely asked if other
listmembers shared his view. You do, but seemingly without any capacity
to say why or on what account. I suspect I'm not the only person
around here who would find this typical.
Perhaps you could say again, or at all, how you find uncolloquial prose
'moneyed'.
Yes, the idea of conspicuous consumption is very familiar to me; as is the
alternatively invidious idea of conspicuous aversion to real dispute. The
former can be wearisome, can also be provocative; the latter is generally
the affect of a would-be disputant who finds himself merely acrimonious.
Sorry you didn't enjoy the reviews of CCCP, perhaps you weren't reading
them very well. If you take another look, you may find that they included
some pretty straightforward (and some elaborate or ironic and
over-wrought) points about the readings. That they happened to be
negative, on the whole, does seem to have incited some very strange
reactions to them.
k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|