>personally i volunteer for writing something word by word with a focus
>group of anybody's devising =)
Okay then. Let the list be the focus group. Let's have the first word?
>From: cheekc <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: cheekc <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Sheep
>Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 08:33:10 -0400
>
>ehehehe hi Tim
>
>yes you do!
>
>;)
>
>poetry has an inutility too
>
>personally i volunteer for writing something word by word with a focus
>group of anybody's devising =)
>
>On May 11, 2007, at 7:15 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>It is interesting that nearly all the discussion about Literature has
>>been from the direction of its mechanics. This is quite a modern idea
>>isn't it? - leading to a definition of literature as something made, used
>>and itself using. There is nothing in the discussions - which I've really
>>enjoyed by the way - which treats Literature as something independent of
>>these mechanics, nothing that treats it as being intrinsic or as
>>possessing its own values. The discussions appear to take for granted
>>Literature's contingency.
>>
>>I suppose I agree on one level with this mechanical approach but I do
>>think there is a problem when it comes to the way the particular
>>mechanical bodies mentioned - publishers, critics, syllabus makers etc -
>>insert or re-establish or pronounce notions of intrinsic value back into
>>the product in order to either sell it or use it as cultural capital.
>>Need to think more about this.
>>
>>Tim A.
>
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
|