[log in to unmask] wrote:
> By the way, even Stevens had some nice comments to make about
> Moore, but it was known that he did so because, although interesting,
> work not expectational, and therefore, she was not a threat to him.
I was going to challenge you, Kate, on MM's work not being exceptional,
for whatever else it is, it is that. Good, bad, indifferent, or
brilliant -- it is like no other poetry in the 20th century. But then,
pondering what you wrote above, I see I have misread.
What do you mean by "not expectational." Were I to take on Steve's
challenge to proffer a definition of art (and I won't), I'd have to
mention expectations. So, I'm interested.