 |
 |
> might be an academic pastime it's pastime, and one I enjoy reading about. But, no I wasn't saying it would generate anything of interest, just sayin', really. Cheers, Luke On 2 May 2018 at 14:20, Jamie McKendrick < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Then I unnecessarily explained myself because you said you didn’t! I’m > suggesting that moving these counters around the board might be an academic > pastime but I can’t see the activity as generating poems of any interest. > Just my opinion. > Jamie > > > > On 2 May 2018, at 14:01, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I know what you meant. They're not abstract entities, that's all I meant. > > Luke > > On 2 May 2018 at 13:59, Jamie McKendrick <00001ae26018af73-dmarc- > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I mean the ‘modes’ that you parenthesised in that sentence - conceptual, >> popular, avant. >> Jamie >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 2 May 2018, at 13:57, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Abstract terms =/= entities, not sure what you mean by that. I mean, >> whatever though. >> >> Cheers, >> Luke >> >> On 2 May 2018 at 13:55, Jamie McKendrick <00001ae26018af73-dmarc-reques >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Or conversely, irrespective of the ‘tensions between modes (conceptual, >>> popular, avant) things (i.e. poetry) will still happen and develop’. >>> I can’t really believe that these abstract entities are in the least >>> bit necessary for generating poems. >>> Jamie >>> >>> >>> > On 2 May 2018, at 02:01, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> > >>> > I mean 'the future of poetry' doesn't have to be a thing, as long as >>> there are still tensions between modes (conceptual, popular, avant) things >>> will still happen and develop, etc.. It's the soggy undifferentiated mess >>> that would disappoint. >>> > >>> > Luke >>> >> >> >