(my mail program intially refused to send this to poetics and only to Nick,
temperamental thing that it is)
> Given the rather wierd burst of activity over the last week this was a
curious
> thread. I would say that there is a lot going on in this area, at least as
far
> as I see anything as _going_ on, for example in the Cybermind and Fiction of
> Philosophy lists. Less poetical-relevance maybe. Alan Sondheim, a principal
> presence on those two lists, has also writen considerably on this but his
> writings are peculiar and almost impossible to _access_ as writings since
they
> form an immense and perhaps unreadable bulk in the Internet Text. This is a
> body of work, some 1500 pages or so perhaps, that he trails round after him,
> the url of the work attached to his signature and the text itself forming the
> body of this persona; a body, like all others, never fully accessible except
> for the lover, and even then after time. But one can love the screen -
indeed
> the propensity to love the screen is perhaps shown by the ease of net-sex -
and
> the love of the screen tends to suggest that, though Fiona's initial
suggestion
> is intuitively right at some level, the screen does indeed have a body.
> Perhaps then it _is_ a generational thing..
>
> When I wanted to read Emerson recently I downloaded his essays free from
> Gutenbergs archives and read them onscreen, adding notes into the text as I
> went. The way the etxts merged as I created a reading of Emerson was curious
> in that these notes were no longer just marginalia, squeezed into tight
spaces
> where their shoulders hunched up and reminded me of tube train journeys at
> twilight. The notes stood straight like Emerson's words. When printed out,
and
> the need to print out to edit is perhaps reliant on the illusion of totality
we
> achieve there, still exists though, but when printed out the screen will have
> mutated the way the reading is read.
>
> Anyway, some thoughts.
>
> matt
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|