Yes, they should be, but they won't be, or the comment may be the
silence. The present indifference is that we don't know the status of
the silence. John C's proposal does allow texts to offer themselves
for response and to emerge from a small, changing initial community
of readership. That community frame may positively interact with the
broader plane just because it is already a community, a swirl in the
ocean. It's a different register between solo open-endedness and the
more tabular ezine and it might be a niche worth occupying.
> Date sent: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:49:01 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: pURL etc
> From: John Kinsella <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Peter Larkin <[log in to unmask]>
> Copies to: [log in to unmask]
> Send reply to: John Kinsella <[log in to unmask]>
> Okay, but shouldn't ALL texts be commented on in that case? Exclusion
> dictates an aesthetic that IS canonical.
>
> Best
> JK
>
>
> Peter Larkin
Philosophy & Literature Librarian
University of Warwick Library
Coventry CV4 7AL UK
Tel: 01203 528151 Fax: 01203 524211
Email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|