 |
 |
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, R I Caddel wrote: > I find that "landscape" is one stage more remote, even etymologically - > you do no more than look at it. You read history from it (which is > important) but you don't have to actually be part of it (in the sense of > randolph/cris's important body dance thread which I hope to come back to > at some point). Click. the camera does it. > The camera does click and I was not in it! The thread you signify as "randolph/cris's important body dance thread", I was, in a local historical sense, instrumental in beginning. Perhaps I if do not believe in origin myths, I should not presume to see my name as part of any beginning, nor beginnings important. Perhaps my text on dance and urban space itself was not seen as "important" or perhaps, or even therefore, I do not have an "important body". Perhaps I am not "grovy" enough. It is so important to me. Only a woman who has seen too many Tatler's would concern herself with the history of literary topographisation. This is why Denise Riley is presumed to sit permanently at the pool-side. And what surface overview do you believe you are "actually part of"? The smallest detail (the zoom-selected paradise you "hope to come back to at some point") has alienated me from coming back to it. But I know it is vain to sulk like an echo in an unseen corner. So I might as well come right out & say it: I am actually in part a vain writer too! I have a subjective ego too! click and click Karlien %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%