i think the discussion on hyperauthorship etc the most interesting topic
to appear on any poetry listserv for a long time.

it may be that the days of traditional authorial positions are numbered
and that in the future minibeasts [tm] scuttle and writhe everywhere in
one endless ecstatic realm. i'm reminded of kurt schwitters and _merz_,
"creating interrelations, if possible between all things of the world"].

as creatures in our niches we could look more towards a kind of "mapping
of fauna" model of appreciation. we could regard ourselves as "connectable"
rather than seeing separation as an essential aspect of authorship, or
as an asset at least. where the network is "damaged" it is dark.

i like the idea of the [controversial term] "quantum self" - something
indeterminate; desiring reciprocity, contiguity. if poems are devices
made of this and that, from here and there, components and arrangements
of components which connect to this and that even before they are
introduced to the structure, then the author is making various kinds of
connections at all stages of creativity.

for the writer and the reader the device is just an inert object if it
fails to connect; if it pretends to connect; if it is meant to fail to
connect. it is a done deal - i.e. it stops at being, it refuses the
imagination's pull and "mould-breaking" creativity [becoming].

we could regard the poet [and the poem] as a thing ever in process,
indeterminate, depending on connection. the author would then become an
elusive entity, a hologram at an interface, everywhere and nowhere, like
the audience.

as ever,

steve

a few quotes which relate to recent discussion:

"if we sought for a symbolic moment at which the "break" occurred and
the malaise began to set in, we might choose the passage in plato's
republic where poets are banned from utopia as "liars" -- as if the law
itself (as abstract category) were the only possible integrative
function, excluding the nomadic imagination as opposition, as anti-truth,
as social chaos. the rational grid is now imposed on the organicity of
life -- all good is seen in natura naturata and "being", while all
becoming (natura naturans) is now associated with "evil"."

from: _the palimpsest_ by hakim bey


"authorship, ownership, and intellectual property: what are the
legislative implications for the concepts of authorship, ownership, and
intellectual property under the aegis of recycling? if we view acts of
cultural production as forms of recycling rather than acts of pure
creation, how does this complicate our definitions of plagiarism?"

from: spoon-ann: cfp: recyclables (9/1/01; collection)


"have you seen it too, around you? on you? that face? in my case it was
so much my everyday companion that i had ceased to notice it until the
shock of death brought it home to me. we smile, but our withholding
makes our smile false. when we are exhilarated, or drunk - or, even as i
am told, make love - the reserve does not dissolve, the gyroscope stays
vertical, the monitory voice reminds us of our calling. until gradually
our very withholding becomes so strident it is almost a security risk by
itself ..."

from: _the secret pilgrim_ by john le carre


regards, steve


on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:07:21 -0500
kent johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
>> David,
>>
>> That's fine, of course, to not let the personae "run loose." Fine poetry can
>> certainly come of such bondage (a tether ball going round and round, faster
>> and faster toward its pole can be beautiful)! And the usual form of
>> authorial presentation ("This poem is written by me, my name is ###")is
>> fine, too--it will always be with us, and should. I try to write them
>> myself, with no great success.
>>
>> But *why not* let some of those personae go, to live their own lives, pursue
>> their own callings, encounter others? To stick with that "muddy, half-wit"
>> for no particular reason seems a bit like the father who christens all his
>> progeny with his own given name and then never lets them leave the
>> apartment. He has his nose in the Bible, and doesn't see, somehow, that in
>> their freedom they will be no less his, and that everything they "render in
>> their wanderings shall extend his seed and honor his memory." (Dead Sea
>> Scrolls)
>>
>> Personae, in other words, are one thing; hyperauthorship is another. The
>> latter is about the *creation of authorships*.
>>
>> Such creation and proliferation does not replace anything, it simply adds,
>> like a bit of weather, to the climate. And given this (that it does not take
>> away) it is interesting how the cloud-break of apocrypha causes discomfort
>> for so many?
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David Bircumshaw said,
>>
>> "and this not at all an attempt of a critique, or an 'authorative' (ha ha)
>> answer, but what I'm really intrigued with on this identity question is why
>> you seem to use a theoretical scaffold for it.
>>
>> I use at times various personae, but they all end with the muddy tag of
>> 'David Bircumshaw' underneath. I have lots of problems with that guy, btw,
>> but I stick with him, possibly from a sense of sympathy. I certainly do at
>> times want to be somebody else, for instance one richer, better looking,
>> younger, miore talented, etc etc, but I stick with that half-wit, maybe if
>> just for old times' sake, rather than let the personae run loose."


                                             o
                          + . o
     dEbRiS <><
   e [log in to unmask] . ><[[[[º>
 web http://www.debris.org.uk
     scattered_fragMents.l0ose_materiALs.etc o
                . / . . ||| . / .*-|/-* delete?
|||||||||1|||||||||2|||||||||3|||||||||4|||||||||5|||||||||6||||||||7||
                                                               exit