Mark,

The distinction isn't between "smart" and "stupid"; it's between
"invested in the spectacle" (of Authentic Witness, in this case) and
"appreciative of the spectacle qua spectacle". That probably maps to
smart/stupid in many people's minds, mine included, most of the time;
but the smart (if not Smart) thing to do at the theatre, during the
performance at least, is to suspend disbelief and get into the drama,
and I dare say that goes for wrestling as well. (As far as religion is
concerned - Bright/Dull - I'm more of a
willing-suspender-of-disbelief than a believer per se; Dawkins'
outright refusal to suspend disbelief strikes me as a particularly
schoolboyish type of smartness, pertness even - I know the territory,
but wouldn't want to live there full-time).

There may be plenty of other grounds for complaint against Yasusada;
I'm not sure myself that, ethico-juridical complexities of authorship
and attribution aside, it isn't simply in rather bad taste, like folks
playing bondage games dressed up in Nazi costumes. It's just that the
complainers in this instance - those cited, not everybody who ever had
an unkind word for Yasusada - seem to have made a particular sort of
mistake, and the Smart/Mark distinction struck me as a good way of
describing what sort of mistake that was.

Actually I think there were only three among those cited who seriously
complained. The first was the editor who, perhaps justifiably feeling
that he'd been had, declared that the perpetration of such a hoax was
"essentially a criminal act". *Essentially*? Essentially *criminal*?
Startling choice of words. If he'd said it was potentially actionable,
he might have had a point (if it could be played out by simulacra in a
virtual world where everybody had an infinite amount of time, money
and patience and nothing better to do, the legal contest might be
worth rehearsing). To issue hasty verdicts in that way is to miss, or
severely pre-judge, several of the ethico-juridical questions being
raised.

The second complaint was from CB, who as far as I can make out thought
Yasusada was an exercise in literary sabotage motivated by jealousy. I
don't think Bernstein's the least bit stupid, but I don't think he was
being especially Smart there. Investment in the spectacle, again:
maybe one of the points of heteronymic poetry is to circumvent some of
the mechanisms that currently sustain literary careers and
reputations, those of "post-avant" poets included. Kent does this
argument better than I do, having (I imagine) thought about it more.
To reduce it to sour grapes is to refuse to acknowledge all the things
about it that make it interesting. And, again, there's something
over-hasty - something militantly defensive - about the reduction.
It's as if what was "undeniable", "essential", "obvious" and
"ethically fundamental" were also somehow fragile and in need of
shoring-up. (Takes of Derridean dunce-cap, picks nose, capers
briefly).

I've already written far too much, so won't bore anyone further by
making the same points all over again about Michael Atkinson - he
practically makes them for me anyway.

Anyhow, I hope this is an improvement on "everyone who disagrees with
me is stupid" - I don't seem to be very good at persuading people that
that isn't what I'm saying, although I dare say I could try harder at
not giving them that impression in the first place.

Dominic