On 16/06/12 21:26, Lawrence Upton wrote:
> That's an arguable point of view, Andrew; but I think it's more ambiguous
> than you allow.
Although Lawrence is perhaps closer to what I was thinking, I would
defend and do appreciate Andrew's comment. It was a reading that did not
occur to me and has got me thinking.
The problem with the piece I posted was I could not preface it as
fiction, since this imposed a reading. But it has given me a better idea
for a small book, perhaps called Statements. I would like to go back to
writing a series of short prose pieces, which I started some years ago.
Doing it as collaged statements which are of course edited?
I also got a better idea of Andrew's idea of poetry, an interest I have
along with other current poets.
Twitter may be the better place to look, but the piece was a collage
from a Sydney Writers Festival panel broadcast on ABC Radio National,
Why be married when could be happy, which critically questioned gay
marriage and the institution of marriage, suggesting even that marriage
act should be repealed; plus other comments from ABC RN and a personal
comment from a conservative friend.
|