"Real Subversive Lit."?

[Michael G. Koopman]

> In what sense, Andrew/Don/ anyone else/ do you really think that V.
> remains "subversive" rather than, say, 'a sixties novel'.  For
> example, are the text's sexual politics still 'subversive' in the wake
> of the excoriations of the sort of Marcusian- brand of politics which
> seems to influence V.?

It is, as always, except for fundamentally flawed scenarios and
obviated cases, a two say half full and two say half empty statement
on such questions as sexual politics when personal agendas are under
hand.  How is it possible to present a nuetered viewpoint when a
situation involving knowledgable representations is needed to meet the
setting?  In such, when is obvious flaw indicator of a deconstructed
meaning in sub-text?  This is non-trivial and better writers will win
a larger audience by admitting subconscious urges strike relevancy in
such mechanisms - despite knowledge that ghost writers, editors and
fellows trying to neat up page margins might add a snag as readily, or
moreso, than any subconscious grunt of the author -- but we do so love
to believe such grunts are earth shattering as we enscribe our matters
to such starry eye pie views, no?  Inordinate ego puts us to so matte,
eh?

Mike Koopman internet: koopman at ctc.com phone: +1-814-269-2637