 |
 |
Forwarded message: From: Self <SAMSON/LYAAZ> To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Bucolics etc Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:32:29 To take up chris's cue, I think the point is being missed: reduction of the land to rural sociology, a pleasant view of trees across ploughed fields (or is it, or should it be, a road with trees in it?), the urban- real of concealed poverty etc. These, so taken, are the contaminations, contaminations being what is there, but in less than the space available. What of the question of open space, a good in itself, what of the question of eco-community, ie sharing a space with other perspectives, other subjectivities than the supervisory human? If the countryside is the village, then no reason at all why all villages shouldn't be joined up, and subtract the intervening spaces: that's contamination here, though the word has other uses and other thorns in it too less available to my own indignation. "Our singing for keels overtuned the strings of the woods Only a landscape can be certain what _are_ the accidents of nature The shape of a landscape is made with the non-human, materials not composed for a logic of occupation alone: which is to say, history speaks more fluently where it only irregularly fills the landscape." Peter Peter Larkin Philosophy & Literature Librarian University of Warwick Library Coventry CV4 7AL UK Tel: 01203 528151 Fax: 01203 524211 Email: [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%