 |
 |
I thought I should mention to Judy and Ricky that I was glad of such detailed attention to what I said and sorry I didn't reply specifically amid the vastness and confusion of it all. Some notes-- Judy: If what Denise Riley said was "laughable" then I must have severely mis-represented her. The reference is to her book The Words of Selves (2000) especially chapter 3, "Lyric selves" and "A Liar tries lyric" part of Chapter 2. Re high and low song, rather than dismissing it, I wanted to refer it to a different cultural set-up, eg traditional or mediaeval music, where the musician does not occupy a high or low niche but is seen as a kind of technician who will supply high or low on demand irrespective of his/her inclinations. The original distinction was between sacred and secular. I think that's all. I'd like to issue a mild complaint about the use of words like laughable, preposterous, absurd, when you disagree. e.g. about the Nobel. There's nothing illogical about disliking that heroic election of the one supreme best of all bests; it's based on a false notion of how art, lit, etc. operates. Ricky: Thanks to you too. Dealing with one literary genre is more than I can cope with but good luck to you as you sail off into the complicated seas of multiple creation. It has been known to work in the past, though I think one of the skills involved often emerges as the dominant one. pr