Jane, I'm glad this thread has prompted you into giving a clearer
definition of your position. To that extent it has been fruitful.
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:42:16 +0100, Jane Holland
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Good to see this discussion here. I don't know which other lists are
>featuring similar discussions, since I only have time really to monitor
the
>chat on Poets on Fire, but I'm sorry if confusion has been caused!
>
>It's not possible for one person to like everything, or admire
everything,
>or even understand it, nor does there seem much point in making the
effort
>if something rarely touches on your daily life. However, as an editor
who
>has clearly stated a desire not to be positioned - in Horizon Review, at
>least - at any particular point in the stream, I do accept the need to be
>open to work which is 'other'. And if you look at the new issue,
launching -
>probably - tomorrow, you should see signs of that, especially since my
>Reviews Editor, George Ttoouli, is broadly sympathetic to non-
mainstream
>work, and that is something I have no problem with.
>
>In my quoted post, I was referring to Keston Sutherland's 'White Hot
Andy',
>not to experimental work in general. And the spirit level/tilting wing
>comment? That was off the top of my head - I was unaware of any
other
>similar comments. But I can see that others here understood that
simile and
>recognised the bewilderment caused by a lack of accepted reference
points.
>On the one hand, I can see the potential for excitement from that. On
the
>other, I am coming out of a very conservative tradition and am to
some
>extent bound by that conservatism to react in a cautious way to work I
>cannot in any way quantify.
>
>I don't believe this has to remain an entrenched Them and Us
situation. But
>experimental writers need to meet mainstreamers at least halfway in
terms of
>an entente cordiale, even if the work itself cannot be compromised.
>
>Was it really the Jolly Roger?
|