It would be great to see this interview get around, and get quoted and cited more. Something evident, is that you not only laugh heartily, but you make your points heartily as well. And I think those two aspects, your laughter and your salient points, acted as catalysts for each other. Maybe not, but their coincidence struck me.
What an engaging conversation. Well done, both of you.
Frank, in the podcast, you mention the great pleasure of meeting new people through blogging. I couldn't agree more; my little blog has landed me across the dinner table from great people I never would have met otherwise.
But I disagree, however mildly, with the suggestion that before blogs, we dorky, literary type weren't finding each other. As early as the mid-1980s, a scarce few of us were using painfully slow modems and single-line bulletin-board systems to track each other down. (I wrote about the experience here.) That's why I can't knock the masses of teenagers with barely readable blogs: where others see only immature, abominable stylists, I see the next generation of authors teaching themselves how to write.
Point taken, Jeff. I had completely forgotten about those. But what's this about literary types being dorky. I may be shallow and glib and a hack. But dorky? Never.
Wasn't "dorky" the word you used in the podcast? If not, my apologies! ...although I'm certainly willing to use the "dorky" moniker to describe myself.
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteOn Poetry & Poets in Rags, I've got you covered and quoted here:
Great Regulars: And the point that I was making
It would be great to see this interview get around, and get quoted and cited more. Something evident, is that you not only laugh heartily, but you make your points heartily as well. And I think those two aspects, your laughter and your salient points, acted as catalysts for each other. Maybe not, but their coincidence struck me.
Yours,
Rus
What an engaging conversation. Well done, both of you.
ReplyDeleteFrank, in the podcast, you mention the great pleasure of meeting new people through blogging. I couldn't agree more; my little blog has landed me across the dinner table from great people I never would have met otherwise.
But I disagree, however mildly, with the suggestion that before blogs, we dorky, literary type weren't finding each other. As early as the mid-1980s, a scarce few of us were using painfully slow modems and single-line bulletin-board systems to track each other down. (I wrote about the experience here.) That's why I can't knock the masses of teenagers with barely readable blogs: where others see only immature, abominable stylists, I see the next generation of authors teaching themselves how to write.
Point taken, Jeff. I had completely forgotten about those. But what's this about literary types being dorky. I may be shallow and glib and a hack. But dorky? Never.
ReplyDeleteWasn't "dorky" the word you used in the podcast? If not, my apologies! ...although I'm certainly willing to use the "dorky" moniker to describe myself.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to go back and listen. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then. I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes."
ReplyDelete