Tim,

I've posted the following response to the Andrews quote elsewhere, but I think it's worth repeating:

"I agree with Andrews. I think he is not against randomness as such, but perhaps works that use it based on a system or procedure that is designed to produce similar patterns of randomness. Such work may display (as Charles Bernstein might say) too much of the mechanisms of its own production to allow readers to fully engage exegetically with the text. This is perhaps why Andrews criticises the work as being just as authoritarian as the School of Quietude, to use Ron Silliman’s term.

When I write poems, chance is used a lot, though I do select from the random data words and phrases that I like, or that I think allow more exegetical possibilities for readers than other chance word or phrase combinations may allow. For me, how this is manufactured is as unimportant as the artist's paints, brush and palette are in the creation of a painting."

Best,

Jeff




Original Message:

Interesting. If Andrews thought then as he does now maybe some of his old work would have a little more open vibration to it. A bit late with some of this stuff though, isn't he? Nothing in the excerpt below that any other modern poet has not mused upon at some point. I'll see what I think when I've read the rest. Thanks Jeff.


Tim A.