I've been looking through with utter horror at some of the posts on this
thread today. What really terrifies me is the way outright lies become
publically current, I know it happens well enough, but in a listserv of
non-careerist poets, Jaysus!
All I can say to people like David Hickman, John Latta, and of all people
Henry Gould, is take a look at what's gone before, and will come again. I
think it is pertinent to mention here that the moderators of this list are
unpaid un-status assured persons who take on the job out of a commitment to
this list, not from any desire for rank, and like any other human beings
they have far more pressing concerns which they at times neglect because of
that voluntary obligation.
Now as for Steve Duffy, I have a deep memory of non-answers to direct
questions from you, sir, and btw don't you dare claim I'm a member of some
hegemony, but I thought it might be apt, in view of your martyrology of Kent
Johnson, to put up a few extracts from Vert, that magazine that speaks so
well for you, your Master, and other collaborators.
Now bear in mind that this material represents the vindication of the
oppressed Kent, that this kind of representation is what he strives for and
Steve Duffy heriocally defends. Following this selection is the masterly
pussyfooting editorial by the lot from Vert, who despite their protestations
of good form continue to publish doctored posts without the consent of their
originators. It is a masterpiece of doubletalk.
I have repeatedly challenged Steve Duffy for a defence of this practice and
always there has been no response. How could there be? it is indefensible.
My admirations to Rob, Joe, Roger, Chris and all the others who continue to
make this a list not to resign from.
And above all to Candice and Alison for having to deal daily with such a a
load of crap.
Best
Dave
Dear Reader(s):
VeRT has always strived for a quiet uninvolved editorial presence, choosing
to allow what's published to stand on its own. This was comfortable; indeed,
we felt it ideal.
However, events of late have compromised this quiet unassuming vision. We
have been drawn into somewhat of a maelstrom, regarding the epistolary
exchanges: Dear Lacan, which were first posted on the British Poets'
ListServ earlier this year. The posts were considered by many on the British
Poets' ListServ to be lacking, both in substance and style. A debate ensued
on Listserv regarding the work and its creators: Kent Johnson and Jacques
Debrot.
We chose, being privy to the posts of this debate, to publish them en masse.
In so doing, we felt we were acknowledging the fact that they represented a
legitimate response to work of such controversial nature. However, we also
recognized that they were evocative of what we in the experimental poetry
community confront often: a conservative misunderstanding of work that
attempts to not only push the proverbial envelope, but to transgress it.
We also believed that the poets quoted therein would stand behind their
remarks in total. We were, unfortunately, naïve in this assumption. After
the publication of these posts, we received a litany of angry demands for
retractions and apologies. To some extent these demands were not without
merit. The posts had, indeed, been edited-- though not materially changed.
Upon learning of this fact, we chose to remove the link to these posts, and
assess the situation.
Certainly we at VeRT don't want to take ourselves too seriously. In some
sense, such seriousness hinders what we see as our project. Despite this,
this controversy has forced us to make serious editorial decisions. We
choose the following course of action and are publishing:
1. The Lacan Posts: Dear Jacques et al as originally published.
2. A URL link to the full text of the British Poets' ListServe response to
the Lacan text.
3. At her request, an edited and complete post from one of the participants
of the British Poet's ListServ, Allison Croggon
4. An edited, adulterated and poetic response to these posts written by one
of the Lacan contributors, Jacques Debrot, along with an Introduction by
Slavoj Zizek.
5. Lastly, a thoughtful, unedited response to this whole mess, provided by
Steve Duffy, also a participant on the British Poets' ListServ.
So there it is. We hope that in the end these choices reflect a certain
quietude that we have wanted to maintain, but also beg the question: Whose
work is it anyway?
Respectfully,
Your Loving Editors
Date: Tues, 20 Feb 2001 15:58:27 -0000
Reply-To: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: British Poets <[log in to unmask]
From: " D>
Subject: Dear Jacques Lacan
Your Lacan posts, I think, Jacques (as I sit here cramping on the toilet and
shitting out my tranquilisers in bloody streams), which manage
to be all-at-once snide, gnomic, pretentious and hostile, and thereby merely
a
failed hard-on, amply demonstrates in its semi-titilating performance the
would-be-threatening-to-me nature of your indeterminate sexuality.
And, sir, you are no gentleman.
And a cad to boot.
Seconds!
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:16:29 +1100
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: British Poets <[log in to unmask]
From: [log in to unmask]
As pornography is the ultimate consumerfest, erasing other(s) entirely in
its egocentric miasma of desire, I can get into it occassionally. But it's
surprising it should turn up here,
although it leaves much to desire as an answer to alienation; perhaps I
am not horny enough yet and miss your irony.
The sex in the Lacan posts is, frankly, not kinky enough.
Alison
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:49:00 -0000
Reply-To: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: British Poets <[log in to unmask]
From: "D" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: *69*
Do you think, though, A, we can give Jacques a pat on the head, on
second thoughts maybe not that, but perhaps a poke with a riding crop made
of
delicate bamboo encased in black leather, held at a
distance, as it were, in the slender white fingers of a beautiful boy,
through the bars of a gilded cage, for
registering the ultimate effect of true porn:
Orgasm followed by GUILT.
Or perhaps I could put on some eye shadow and makeup and have a whip round
his office though
perhaps the verb there gives us away?
D
Dear Reader(s):
VeRT has always strived for a quiet uninvolved editorial presence, choosing
to allow what's published to stand on its own. This was comfortable; indeed,
we felt it ideal.
However, events of late have compromised this quiet unassuming vision. We
have been drawn into somewhat of a maelstrom, regarding the epistolary
exchanges: Dear Lacan, which were first posted on the British Poets'
ListServ earlier this year. The posts were considered by many on the British
Poets' ListServ to be lacking, both in substance and style. A debate ensued
on Listserv regarding the work and its creators: Kent Johnson and Jacques
Debrot.
We chose, being privy to the posts of this debate, to publish them en masse.
In so doing, we felt we were acknowledging the fact that they represented a
legitimate response to work of such controversial nature. However, we also
recognized that they were evocative of what we in the experimental poetry
community confront often: a conservative misunderstanding of work that
attempts to not only push the proverbial envelope, but to transgress it.
We also believed that the poets quoted therein would stand behind their
remarks in total. We were, unfortunately, naïve in this assumption. After
the publication of these posts, we received a litany of angry demands for
retractions and apologies. To some extent these demands were not without
merit. The posts had, indeed, been edited-- though not materially changed.
Upon learning of this fact, we chose to remove the link to these posts, and
assess the situation.
Certainly we at VeRT don't want to take ourselves too seriously. In some
sense, such seriousness hinders what we see as our project. Despite this,
this controversy has forced us to make serious editorial decisions. We
choose the following course of action and are publishing:
1. The Lacan Posts: Dear Jacques et al as originally published.
2. A URL link to the full text of the British Poets' ListServe response to
the Lacan text.
3. At her request, an edited and complete post from one of the participants
of the British Poet's ListServ, Allison Croggon
4. An edited, adulterated and poetic response to these posts written by one
of the Lacan contributors, Jacques Debrot, along with an Introduction by
Slavoj Zizek.
5. Lastly, a thoughtful, unedited response to this whole mess, provided by
Steve Duffy, also a participant on the British Poets' ListServ.
So there it is. We hope that in the end these choices reflect a certain
quietude that we have wanted to maintain, but also beg the question: Whose
work is it anyway?
Respectfully,
Your Loving Editors
|