Sorry if I sounded harsh. I just found your posts unclear. Yes, I did read the articles and what you were saying seemed to have no relation to them. It was as if you were just thinking aloud to yourself. That's ok, but you shouldn't expect everyone to be familiar with you style.
--------------Original Message--------------
Luke wrote:
Sorry if it was indeed gibberish, I guess I often just assume that everyone is on the same page as me. Not just having just read the same article, but the same emails, and that what I'm saying is obvious, etc..
Cheers,
Luke
On 22 December 2017 at 13:51, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well maybe it's unhelpful, and all I mean is that institutions ought not be super hermetic.
Here I was just repeating myself.
>> > As I reader I could appreciate both, just as at times I did not; the worst of the smooth and glossy seemed to offer little but that smoothness and glossiness just as the worst of the other stuff seemed to offer little more than its wild jaggedness and aggression—both could be as boring as hell.
Another quote from Tim's article.
> Analogously to what Peter said about academies (plural)
I am referring to Peter Riley's last email to the list
> non academics aren't a single entity, even in their relation to the academy.
And suggesting it's true of anything.
Sorry,
Luke
On 22 December 2017 at 00:49, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Well maybe it's unhelpful, and all I mean is that institutions ought not be super hermetic.
> As I reader I could appreciate both, just as at times I did not; the worst of the smooth and glossy seemed to offer little but that smoothness and glossiness just as the worst of the other stuff seemed to offer little more than its wild jaggedness and aggression—both could be as boring as hell.
Analogously to what Peter said about academies (plural) non academics aren't a single entity, even in their relation to the academy.
Cheers,
Luke
On 21 December 2017 at 23:04, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks.
> let’s just say that if I am irritated to high heaven by the kind of thing I related in the opening paragraph, and know that poetry produced within an academic context gives no de facto pointer to its quality, just as no poem has a de facto quality because it has been published
I supposed the original article by Berry was going the other direction, that academic sanctioning isn't necessary, rather than sufficient/ The latter seems difficult to take seriously, at least deliberately so. I mean I'll never be part of any academy, but then for similar reasons I won't be entirely "knowing" either, so probably more useful to think about how opposition to an 'otherstream' impinges on the academy itself.
Luke
|