Whoever you are:

Pseudonymous literature is not in question. This is a discussion, not an
art form. You have (y'all have) decided to change its purpose, and that is
abusive. Y'all seem not to have been potty-trained: most of us very early
discover the minimal rules of appropriateness to the given situation.

But you have succeeded in making yourself (ves) the center of attention,
and almost the exclusive subject. Sad that you should feel the need to. You
will get no more gratification from me, as I will henceforth delete all
posts under any of your pseudonyms, and all but the first posts under
subsequent ones. Unfortunate, because once in a great while you actually
talk about something other than yourself (ves). I will also delete any
posts with your subject headings. If that doesn't work I will leave the
list. If you succeed in short order you will be all alone, but you may not
notice the difference. Narcissists, even collective narcissists, often
think that their own reflections are amusing company.

Mark

At 04:37 AM 10/20/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>Why the desire to denigrate pseudonymous literature?  Some of the greatest
>of all contributions to the understanding of our human condition have
>appeared under assumed names.  If your pedantic (and, might I say, anally
>retentive) scruples had been strictly adhered to, we might never have held
>in our fragile hands such wonders as the Concluding Unscientific Postscript
>or Fear and Trembling.  The reason for adopting pseudonyms?  Simply: to
>suggest and elaborate on the horizons of different views of life.  (See
>Kierkegaard's Point of View for a justification of what you apparently view
>as a nefarious practice.)
>    Members of this list rising against Pseudo-Susanna have not taken into
>consideration - but they should from now onwards - that behind a name there
>might be more than one author, as in this case.  And that behind
>Pseudo-Susanna or Sonia or Antonio or Erminia there might be actually a
>group of writers made of poets, philosophers, novelists, literary critics,
>and so on.
>
>Regards,
>
>Antonio Gonzalez y Perez
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 5:57 PM
>Subject: Re: Poetry and Politics A dialogue between civilizations
>
>
>> Are you the Antonio that Pseudo Susannah announced as her next persona, on
>> the stated theory that men can get away with more inappropriate behavior
>> than women?
>>
>> At 01:39 AM 10/20/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>> >To John Kinsella (from an observer)
>> >
>> >Despite the fact that a poetry list should welcome a large sample of
>> >cultural ideologies--with all their inconsistencies,  contradictions and
>> >paradoxes--  at present there seem to be a tendency not to allow people
>to
>> >identify with matters of their own choice or set their own terms for what
>> >will develop from the chosen direction.
>> >
>> >To come out with wounded responses or to claim that because a majority of
>> >members has asked for the expulsion of another (who has found responsible
>> >for transgressing the set rules), this expulsion has to take place, is
>like
>> >legitimizing the formation of a sort of crime tribunal with trials and
>> >condemnations.
>> >
>> >The rules set by this present tribunal seem to be based on a common
>> >consensus , but are,  of course, completely arbitrary (as all rules ).
>> >
>> >The present tendency is dangerous and should be discouraged. Poetry
>should
>> >welcome diversity and be opened to discussion in whatever style.
>> >
>> >In some countries, Parliaments are composed of no less than 5,  6
>> >conflicting parties, ( only superficially opposed to each other or hardly
>> >reconcilable). Nevertheless, those Parliaments are legal and active and
>can
>> >make rules , transcending oppositions and conflicts of interest or
>> >ideologies and different styles of conduct.
>> >
>> >The recent thread (EP, personae, associated matters) wished to establish
>> >codes and rules (but primarely it aimed to silence people which were
>> >considered radical or whose performance did not please some
>participants).
>> >As an observer, I feel one should be able to stand the presence and the
>> >behavior of those who have different ideologies or that come from
>different
>> >cultures. If a list member is using his own cultural communicative code,
>> >feeling in good faith not to offend others, the others should start from
>> >that very point and analyse what kind of culture that behavior originate
>> >from and what is the meaning of that performance within its original
>> >territory.
>> >
>> >I have the feeling and worry that the ongoing protest against pseudo
>> >entities is aiming to establish a hierarchy which has the power to decide
>> >punishments and set rules as universal , permanent and uncontestable, It
>> >seems in fact an attempt to establish a kind of totalitarism with Chief
>> >Executives charged of various Offices for Acceptance or Expulsion.
>> >
>> >As I read it, Acceptance is granted to a new Member only  if he or she
>(once
>> >entered the established code of communication)  starts acting in a
>> >respectful and almost servile way towards the few existing leading
>> >personalities.
>> >
>> >As I have argued , the recent Poetryetc World War II bears a complicated
>and
>> >ambivalent relation to modernist Politics.  The dominant personalities
>who
>> >make claims baout this and that wish to impose as dominant themes their
>own
>> >cultural ideologies (Australian and British mainly: no German, Spanish,
>> >African around as yet)   and act , in turn  , as an Army aiming to plan
>> >aggression towards any intruders to re-establish the previous "order".
>> >
>> >In these periods of War, poetry matters seem to be hardly discussed and
>one
>> >breaths a general atmosphere of suspicion, which embitters  a growing
>> >skepticism against the "other". Philosophical or theoretical discussions
>no
>> >longer to take place , and a sustaining and  reliable relation between
>> >subject and object, mind and matter finally fails to exist.
>> >
>> > In these periods, one finds in the list no moment of literary insight
>and
>> >the only  constituted acts of genuine signification are those against
>> >Imagination.
>> >
>> >Yours
>> >
>> >Antonio Gonzales
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%