> 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).


Kent, David who is Bircumshaw here again, I'm fascinated by your impression
of what 'every English graduate student now knows', in the first place,
because I have never experienced that condition, and in the second, because
acquaintance with those who have has never told me they do know what LangPo
is about. What also comes across to me very distinctly is that your bias is
towards poetry as understood via discourses of critique, rather than poetry
as experiencid through the problematic acts of creativity.

Which is one of those 'places' where Self can be questioned over and over
again, but you're still left with its tacky actuality, after the show.

I'd also suggest it might be a cool notion to demur at the acts of those you
see as self-serving, anger can consume too much. Speak from experience
there.

Best

Dave



----- Original Message -----
From: "kent johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 3:52 PM
Subject: Names/ poetry/ surplus


> 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
>