hey juliana-does that reading have anything to do w/what suzanne stein was talking about (the necessary new stance of pliancy)? what do you know about this that you're not telling? clarify!

i read the nealon article & am not sure what he is really saying but i'll take a reductivist stab at it. for me, the most resonant claim was that these post-language poets are reclaiming waste. they are "rescuing" the lost materials, and this "stance" is one of nostalgia & camp. what are they rescuing? real things like abandoned military bases and antique computers & goodwill dresses, as well as the ornaments of literature from all periods. this sounded very "postmodern" to me. right? wasn't that the big deal for awhile? like i can reference homer & andy warhol and computer programming language and it's all ok, everything is removed from its context, etc. i am not sure what any of this has to do w/vagueness, since the readings he did of the poets referenced in the essay seemed to claim that these post-language poets ARE making arguments in the work. he calls it "testamentary, expectation-laden materiality." i guess it all has to do with CAPITAL and MATERIAL. oh, these marxists. i was with him for the history lesson of language & new york school contextualization, but when he got to the main thrust i was slightly bewildered.

camp & kitsch-->is this still happening? i guess it is, but what about The New Sincerity (tm)?