I've now taken the liberty of adding Jim, David, and Constance to the
listserv, so that ought to make all eight of us.
 
I wanted to respond to the suggestion Annie made after she talked to Eric.
First off, before I begin, a general disclaimer.  As most of you know, or
can tell, I'm pretty burned out with readings.  In the past, especially
when I was organizing them, I made it a point of honor to attend every one,
partly because I was strongly suggesting that my students attend, and
partly because it seemed only proper.  Last year, for the first time, I
missed a couple, and honest to God, I'm not sure my life was made poorer as
a result.  This manages to coincide with a time in my life when the whole
business of writing--the conferences, contests, readings, networks--both
aggravates and enervates me.  So the fact that I'm a bit wary of Annie's
suggestiion may be explained by this.
 
What's attractive about her suggestion, of course, is the general ease it
allows, the fluidity, the spontaneity.  Rather than gearing up the entire
cumbersome CW machine, sperwing forth reams of publicity, browbeating our
students and then attending ourselves, it allows for readers to a more
specialized audience, or even to readers (or god forbid, writers) we'd like
to bring in specifically for a class we were teaching.
 
What I don't like about it is the possibility that it would encourage those
very aspects of the biz which sicken me:  the way people trade off
readings, for example, as a form of mutual self-congratulation; the way we
sometimes (and I did too) invite people not because their work is of
interest or because they'd be good for our students--and let's face it, not
all writers and not all readers are good for our students, not by a long
shot--but because we didn't want to let down a friend or we owed a favor or
worse.
 
This might not be a good reason to scotch Annie's idea, but I did want to
raise it at any rate.
 
Steven