🚀 go-pugleaf

*** Original Author: SBRHYM-L @ SUNYSB - ** Remote User **; 07/14/92 13:08

>Received: from CCVM.sunysb.edu by AUDUCADM.DUC.AUBURN.EDU (IBM MVS SMTP V2R1)
>   with TCP; Tue, 14 Jul 92 13:08:17 CDT
>Received: from ccvm.sunysb.edu by CCVM.sunysb.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
>   with BSMTP id 7051; Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:08:27 EDT
>Received: from SBCCVM.BITNET by ccvm.sunysb.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with
> BSMTP id 4283; Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:08:27 EDT
>Date:         Tue, 14 Jul 1992 14:06:03 EDT
>Reply-To:     SUNY/Stony Brook Literary Underground <SBRHYM-L@CCVM.sunysb.edu>
>Sender:       SUNY/Stony Brook Literary Underground <SBRHYM-L@CCVM.sunysb.edu>
>From:         hag@CELIO.UVM.EDU
>Subject:      Re: sorry Dana
>X-To:         SBRHYM-L%SBCCVM.bitnet@UVMVM.UVM.EDU
>To:           Multiple recipients of list SBRHYM-L <SBRHYM-L@CCVM.sunysb.edu>
>
Pardon my ignorance, and please do not consider this in any way a judgment
or castigation, but having read very little "new literature" that is,
written in the last 25 years and considered on the cutting edge of
literature, I am simply curious. Is this style of quick MTV-like cutting,
kaleidoscope vignettes, plot or plotless cul-de-sacs, and self-conscious
interruptions of story the latest style in literature. It seems to be quite
prevalent. Or is it to be found only in certain groups.

I repeat that this is not a judgment or criticism of the work in question.
I'd like to know in case I decide to start writing again.

- HAG, given the terseness of the message, not to be confused, obviously,
with H

*** Comments from ROLLIDE - Rollins, Dana; 07/14/92 01:25pm:
yes and no.

Sorry Dana