I originally worte this to Elizabeth James in reply to her recviewsof the e-
poetry conference. Perahps it will work as a new thread instead...

Hi Elizabeth [and everyone else]

I felt stirred to reply, hope you don't mind. I also hope this makes some
kind of sense. Just to point out that I'm replying as Chris rather than
for LUC.

I've been reading your reviews of the E-poetry conference recently.
Although I wasn't able to get to much of the conference, and neither do I
identify myself as an e-poet, the programme seemed very interesting, and I
wanted to attend in support of Piers and Stephen since they both worked
their socks off helping put the event together.

While it strikes me that e-poetry is still (a) fledgling it is something of
a necessity that poets engage with electronic media, and critique its
ideological outcomes by offering alternative ways to engage with this media
aesthetically. It is a technology that is very much here to stay, indeed,
it is already here*. As important as new e-art is though I am more
accomplished and comfortable with page and stage. I think this reflects
something of a trend, as poets we are better on the page, or in
performance. This is of course no excuse for not trying something
different, and my small contribution at the conference with LUC was an
effort in this direction.

 
I can't remember if it was me that wrote 'the immediacy of these
transactions render them as good as useless' as part of LUCs chatroom/e-
mail paper. That is the beauty (and a trouble) of working with LUC, our
voices get swept together. I think you are right though- it is something
worth grappling with. The statement does get to the crux of an important
matter about writing and new technology. The inherent post-modernity of
it all^. As much as I'd like to fail to embrace post-modernity I can't
help thinking that I can't.

I like that sentence and I think I'll write it again.

As much as I'd like to fail to embrace post-modernity I can't help thinking
that I can't

can't help thinking

as much as I'd like

to embrace

can't help

To get Orwellian- while ancient man was instructed "thou shall not" and the
totalitarian message instructs "thou art" neo-liberalism, and the negative
aspects of post-modernity that accompany it, gets you to instruct
yourself "I can't".

At this point I'll try to get to my point. Internet poetry, and we can
probably extend that to all poetry, is at the moment as good as useless.
Even if it were read by the non-existent masses (that homogenous other that
no-one ever admits to being a part of). But it is of supreme importance.
It explores the limits of technological expression, and in this you can
find genuine points of resistance, difference, and departure. Eye-
holes/chinks of light. This, if it is your want, can be used for
political purposes. All newcontemporaryinnovativelatemodernit
ywhateverwecallit literature is certainly charged politically. I'm not one
to dictate what form this political direction takes. But I'd rather be
criticising why micosoft exists as it does rather than criticising
microfsoft for microsofts sake- which some at the conference seeemed to be
doing during the short time I was there.
 
Anyroads, thanks for your comments about LUC, and hopefully you're right,
it is getting somewhere, 'building up', although no-where fast or
definite. I'm not sure if this reply is overly thought out, or badly
written (maybe a bit of both) but hopefully the gist comes through anyway.
 
Take care

Chris

^ I should really define what I mean by post modernity here shouldn't I?

PS- It would have been great to see John Drever and Lawrence's live
composition on Saturday afternoon but I'd promised Silvana we would go and
buy some books about antiques. The irony of this was not lost on either
Silvie or I but we went to buy the books anyway