As one of those whose words have been co-opted by Kent, absolutely agree with Robin here. I've witnessed at least 4 out of 5 of Kents little do's - each time I think they've become a little more pre-meditated. It's crap-all to do with anything moral or ethical.
I'm not even sure that it looks that good in the artistic stakes. As far as I can see, It's a one-trick pony and the trick is now stale and the pony's lame.
What's worse people play at schills to his games. Get a life. This guy has no magic as far as I can see.
Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 21:28
Subject: Re: k j unsubscribe
> From: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> >> What crap Steve. This kind of sneaky bullshit really gets up my nose.
>
> "
> and this kind of sneaky rhetoric really gets up my nose. i've watched
> kent being hounded off two lists, and by way of explanation all you can
> seem to say is that everyone ought to trust you and the other listowners.
> "
>
> -- well, let's just get this a little straight: it was four lists and five
> occasions. There was Buffalo in 98. Kent the martyr for free speech
> [reported in various publications by -- who else? Kent Johnson]. Then there
> was british-poetry, which ended up being "reported" in VeRT
> (complete --though this was, apparently the responsibility of Kent's
> collaborator Jacques Debrot -- with doctored posts). Then there was the
> subsub meltdown, in the course of which Kent made the "whimsical" suggestion
> that Richard Dillon's posts were actually written by David Hess. This might
> be accepted as a typical Kent Johnson joke (if, leaving aside the venom with
> which Richard was being treated on subsub at that point, a singularly
> tastlesless one) if it didn't happen that not so long later, we have Kent
> and Hess carrying on a public/private psychodrama on poetryetc. That was
> resolved with Kent being reinstated as a full member of poetryetc.
>
> Now the latest fiasco ...
>
> How many bites on the postman's leg does the dog get to inflict?
>
> "
> i'm sorry if having to explain what a person is charged with is boring
> for you. i can assure you it is exceedingly boring for me to have to
> attempt to get blood from a stone - i'd much rather be getting on with
> my work. but if kent can be "written out" and protest landscaped over
> then who is safe?
> "
>
> Well, given that well +before+ this reached the point it has, Kent was
> already negotiating publication rights (egoless copyright) for his version
> of events on poetryetc, he's hardly being "written out". VeRT was asked,
> not to censor the Johnson/Debrot "Lacan Letters" but to include statements
> (perfectly fair, as the whole issue of 'censorship' on british-poetry was at
> issue) from various members of british-poetry. Did they? Did they fuck.
> So stop prating about censorship.
>
> I could go on -- but I'd make the point that the archives of Buffalo, subsub
> [I think], british-poetry, and poetryetc are open for public inspection.
> Fewer people will read them than will read The Kent Johnson Version in VeRT,
> or wherever. Nevertheless, they're there to be consulted.
>
> This isn't an issue of censorship, it's an issue of disinformation.
>
> Robin Hamilton
>
>
|