David (Bircumshaw), since I, Kent Johnson, got this thread started, I'd just
like to say (and this would be also in response to David Hess's thoughtfully
rendered intervention) that most of my argumentative remarks in the
interview referenced by Mr. Hess revolve around what I see as a big
disjuncture between "Language poetry" theory (which is founded, as every
English graduate student now knows, on a critique of traditional conceptions
of identity and self) and the authorial practice of those proclaiming it
(which has remained circumscribed by generic modes of presentation that are
profoundly inimical to truly radical poetic enactments of the theory).

In the past week there was a discussion over at Subsub about this very topic
(and it seems to have precipitated the closing of that list-- but that's
another long and complicated story). Since it's apropos to what's been
discussed here, and since I mention Poetryetc in it, I thought I'd post the
below in hopes that it might clarify some of my own concerns and interests
vis a vis the general issue. The post responds to a very eloquent criticism
by the almost-always eloquent Henry Gould, and I include his post, too:

-------------

Hi Henry,

I agree with Jordan: The below is a terrific post. And you are right that
we've had this argument before. Now, as then, I say, to assuage your
eloquent unease (and Jordan's snitty nausea): the ideal of a developed
hyperauthorial counter-sphere (which will likely remain, in the U.S. [as
oppposed to Russia], I readily admit, just an idea-- I wish I could take a
blurry photo of it and sell it to The Museum of Conceptual Art) is no threat
to the time-honored way of "public poets" doing things. [Repeat: "is no
threat, etc...] It would be, only, an accompanying reality, something
parallel that would *add* (I'm convinced of this) to poetry's magic,
excitement, and public reach. It is that hyperauthorship allows for
fictional/poetic travels in imaginative space/time that conventional forms
of denomination and textual circulation do not. Or to say it another way:
Hyperauthorship is the conjoining of poetry and fiction into a little-tested
way of making art.

That's why when you ask what is most interesting about _Debbie: An Epic_,
the work itself or "Lisa Robertson", its author, I say, simply, that
obviously the work, and that wouldn't it be interesting to see what might
happen to such a work when imagined and offered inside an active heteronymic
counter-sphere (counter-sphere is a good word, I don't know why I haven't
thought of it before).

And this, Henry:

>What I'm saying is that putting a name to a work is not necessarily
>an individualist/entrepreneurial act. & that anonymity can also
>negate some of the more positive aspects of "signing" a work -
>ie. by signing you are taking responsibility in a social act, you
>are risking your private self by a public commitment.

I am not trying to just play at jiu-jitsu when I say that hyperauthorship is
not properly anonymous in character: Works *are* signed, authors *are*
taking responsibility in social acts and risking private selves in public
commitments. It's only that they would be doing these things in more complex
and, in certain respects, riskier ways.

It was Alison who talked about listening to Randloph Healy on tape. The
discussion around this over at Poetryetc has been serious and extremely
interesting, free of pot-shotting. I'd encourage people at subsub to join
Poetryetc, too. It's John Kinsella's list, very active, and more or less
intellectually dominated by women.

Kent


>I thought you were arguing that by putting their names to their work
>certain langpos etc were contradicting some of the principles they
>wrote for, ie. that individualism plays into the commodification &
>social control featured in capitalism. & that your functions of
>hyperauthorship/anonymity actually do what the others only claim to do,
>disrupting the literary system.
>
>What I'm saying is that putting a name to a work is not necessarily
>an individualist/entrepreneurial act. & that anonymity can also
>negate some of the more positive aspects of "signing" a work -
>ie. by signing you are taking responsibility in a social act, you
>are risking your private self by a public commitment.
>
>I think we had this argument before once, but another way to look at
>writing is that it is a de-centering act from the get-go. So putting
>your name to it is more like an afterthought. Which is more
>interesting, the poem "Debbie: an Epic", or the fact that the
>author's name is Lisa Robertson, that you've heard that name before,
>that you've read some other things by Lisa Robertson, etc...
>
>Ressentiment of the po-biz fishpond is extremely toxic to the
>resenter. Nobody knows that better than I do. How much is the
>critique of "names" and authors a function of ressentiment?
>
>I guess I'm skeptical, Kent. Basically hyperauthorship seems like
>"visual poetry" or other such pseudo-revolutions in poetics. I'm
>a reactionary, I guess. The substance of value in poetry seems
>to inhere in words in rhythm: what impresses me is poetry that
>does a lot with a little, without techno or ideo-crutches.
>(I know, I know, everything exhibits ideology...)
>
>But don't let me throw cold water on your masquerade.
>It's 8:15 I'm at the office on a beautiful day & I'm grumpy.
>
>Henry
>


David Bircumshaw wrote:

Er, I'm inclined towards Alison's tedious, it's not that there aren't real
issues hovering around this question of authorial authority, but I think
they've been gang-banged into a blur in this strange thread of continual
Naming on behalf of No-Name.
We all crave 'recognition' but surely that is as we do as individuals,
conflating that desire to be 'known' to another with the desire to be A Big
Name seems misleading. Especially as the critique of Name seems to be part
of a desire to Be A Name.

Doesn't hold together, for me, particularly in respect that there are real
and vulnerable matters at stake. Also I suspect the magic bus might be
somewhat rusty after all these years.

best

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com