[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,
> her
> 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.


In Boston,
Marcia