 |
 |
Peter: to whom are you addressing this? John and Karlien were sarcastic about Hughes' making money with mimimal risk to reputation with his timing and people's memories and us passing the era when any feminist analysis of writing seems to have mattered. Otherwise, mine was the other post about Hughes critical of him, and I didn't call him a monster. But asked whether his writing showed him take any *agency* in Plath's death; if to concede as a fan (and I did praise his Laureate work, so you can't place my post as kneejerk anti-"mainstream") a little agency is to concede he is a "monster", then no wonder he nor anyone else does; but I'm asking that they/he concede a little agency and not be a monster but not be the lamb his poem and his press makes him be; light *and* dark, o tumbrils. Ira On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:50:23 +0000 Peter Riley wrote: > From: Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:50:23 +0000 > Subject: Autumnal Hues > To: [log in to unmask] > > Re: Ted Hughes, evil capitalist monster. > > Ted Hughes is not an evil capitalist monster. > > > I've never found that literature spoils autumn for me, if anything it > enhances it. Thomas Hardy was particularly good on the subject and there > was a Keatsperson.... not to mention Kawabata. It is possible, if you come > out of those smug little holes, to read, and possibly create, literature as > a thing that does good in the world. Autumnal freshness would not be such a > calming tone if literature didn't constantly balance the hints of mortality > against the fixing of gain, n'est-ce pas? > > > What's wrong with commerce? > > > Peter Riley > > > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%