|
(as ever, I made a slip on this, and doubled-up the Vert editorial, of all
things. So sorry for double posting, and, golly, I hope Andrew Felsinger
doesn't regard this post as a breach of copyright, the mind boggles)
I've also changed the title of the post, out of affection.
db
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
|
