Re: the "Maynard on Salinger" article
Andy Wishart (wishy@nettaxi.com)
Fri, 07 Aug 1998 12:31:48 +0000 (GMT)
>Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 15:40:34 -0500
>From: Tim O'Connor <tim@roughdraft.org>
>To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
>Subject: Re: the "Maynard on Salinger" article
>Message-ID: <v04003a04b1efbff0a5e9@roughdraft.org>
Anyone got any clues as to what's causing the odd little additions to
my messages? I seem to be the only one who gets the figures and
little equals signs. Cute but unnecessary.
>> Is there any way to write without ego? I haven't found it.
>I think so. The people writing today, well, we may have years or =
decades
>to find out what they have done, but historically, I can think of Emily
>Dickinson and Franz Kafka. They'd never survive a week in today's
>publishing business; the shelf life of their work would be shorter than
>you'd get out of a container of unpasteurized milk in the summertime.
Yes, but why do you feel that they wrote without ego? Without wishing
that someone would hear their word, would like their stories (like
them?). I'm not talking about riches. I'm the poorest guy in
Scotland (official figures pending). I'm not talking about writing
for the cash (though I do) but not since I used to stick poetry in my
drawer, have I finished (to my satisfaction) anything that I didn't
want to be read. Actually, I pretty much bored people with the stuff
I stuck in a drawer too. =20
I'm just suspicious of writing that isn't intended to be read. I
question the motivation. More than that, I question the -truth- of
it. =20
--=20
Cheers,
Andy