Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:08:14 -0400
From: ostrow-AT-is2.nyu.edu (Ostrow/Kaneda)
Subject: Re: x as in example


klefstad wrote
>>
>Shit, Saul, this is a silly response to a collection of interesting
>artifacts. Celan and Creeley are not doing discursive, descriptive language,
>they're doing "text-objects"--a different critical approach is called for.
>(And "shallow" is not a quality a "puppet" can have. How many lists do you
>correspond with? Maybe cut the numbers and raise the quality-- )

Last question first 3, though I subscribe to 5.
Next: a puppet can lack depth in the same way a person may or a performance
,  but if you like change it to shadow.
Next for the most part my response is derived from and uses the original
post-- If poetry is not part of discursive or discriptive language you best
tell the poets, forthey construct and convey their meanings by using all
the tools of slippage.  If you perfer next time blister blathers I will do
an aesthetic analysis the  interesting artifacts, blister chooses to abuse.

Finally as to the quality of your post-- there really isn't much to it is
there -- you should in the future elaborate your points rather than make
such unfounded ascertions like  that the series of quates constituted a
collection of "interesting artifacts,"  that "Celan and Creeley are not
doing discursive, descriptive language, they're doing "text-objects""  and
that "a different critical approach is called."  and by the way is_shit_ a
greeting commonly used out where you are stationed.




     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---