Dear Drew,
...to address the problem of address...
I'm concerned at your recent message announcing that you are leaving the
list. At the risk of exposing a pretended paranoid, I hope it wasn't
anything I said. (And, by the way, I never thought for a moment that you
were milling around the same buffet with those Sussex 'millenarians'.)
But your retreat to the delights of 'more personal correspondence' 'on a
more individual basis on issues of shared issues' has, as I've mulled it
over, encouraged me to make an unambiguous defence of this for(u)m, which,
I believe, has great potential.
You, Drew, are an editor as well as a poet. _Parataxis_ has ceased
publication, although I understand you will continue with the occasional
book. Did you retire _Parataxis_ for the same reasons? Because you looked
forward to the delights of a more personal sharing? It seems to me that a
magazine like Parataxis was dedicated to public dialogue, discussion, a
plurality of contesting discourses -- and also, of course, to the
presentation of new poetry (not just its representation).
Those problems which you discovered in this for(u)m are clearly also
problems of the magazine/journal form. Volume of mail, too much to read,
not enough quality, wrong sort of stuff, poetry/poetics deluged in shop
talk and misguided reviews, etc., etc.
What are the chief differences between this for(u)m and that of the
magazine? There are many, but surely the different potential for handling
1) editorial control (?=authority) and 2) the problem of address
(public/private; one/many-to-one/many) count as important considerations,
so I'm only going to comment now on these two.
I propose that the absence of identifiable editorial control in a for(u)m
like the list is a positive benefit. The list is open, but I guess that it
is (currently) subscribed to by range of individuals similar in profile to
_Parataxis_ subscribers. I trust them to be providers and sharers of
content which I, for one, am likely to find of interest. There is,
therefore, the potential, which is being intermittently realized, to learn
a great deal about current poetry, poetics and poetic practice on a list
like this. If you don't like what is posted here, you can use the delete
command (fairl swiftly and painlessly), or you can, as you have done,
catastrophically, sign off. But then, it is also possible to not read the
magazines or letters that fall through one's letter box.
Secondly, I propose that the problematic of address which is represented in
this for(u)m is *well represented*, that it presents us - somehow, directly
- with issues which we have learned, through practice and theory, to keep
at the forefront of our concerns. In the practice of writing (now), who do
we address? Who is this we who so addresses itselves? Who is reading or
rewriting our addresses? Singular or plural? Public? Private? Personal? As
an example, note the modulation of the 'open letter' or 'letter for
publication' in my present message. I address this letter directly to both
you and the list. Both of you (you-singular and you-plural) get the letter
as I have written it directly -- unedited, not in separate (annotated)
copies -- as it leaves my desk at least. I am conscious of this as I write
and the modulation of address which it produces, I affirm to be interesting
and important. In the discussion with Fiona, I was conscious of the same.
Finally, why shouldn't a for(u)m such as this be seen as one type of an
ideal for the exchange/sharing/development of (especially academic,
technical, special-interest) ideas through writing. If we take it, at one
and the same time, seriously and playfully, it is the perfect due form for
such a program(me). I think we should put our energies into it. When I've
spoken with some academics about the internet, www and mailing lists, they
often complain of time-wastage, the amount of 'garbage', indifferent
quality, etc. I have no patience with this. What is stopping them joining,
raising our games, educating us/themselves? Of course they have to budget
their time and continue to teach and do research, but there are ideals of
intellectual pursuit which transgress those definitions. Isn't the real
issue the preservation of editorial/ critical/ academic/ 'true' poetic
authority?
With very best wishes,
John
(... who, seriously, promises to shut up for a while 'cause I'll be too
busy writing some tremendously important papers and preparing some
performances.)
Addendum:
---------
Specific proposals for the List:
1) Work out a mechanism to allow the regular publication of new poetry
through the list. Never disallow the 'at will' posting of occasional pieces
by 'individuals' or 'entities', but in order to develop the list as a
for(u)m for, shall we say, 'first publication of finished pieces' set up an
ad hoc, rotating list of readers. Every month (or two or three) one person
on the list is chosen (arbitrarily?/according to chance procedures?/just
some one person?) as 'first reader'. For that month, submissions for
publication of original texts on the list are sent to the first reader. The
first reader comments, recommends acceptance/refusal and passes on the
piece to two other readers for their comments, recommendation. If the piece
is 'accepted' it is posted to the list as 'a publication of the list'. (It
could also be posted to other lists of related interest, even to the email
addresses of selected individuals and organizations, such as, for example
the regional arts boards, to keep them aware of what *we* consider to be
good contemporary work in our field.) Consider publishing (with permission)
the readers' comments on accepted pieces. The list then becomes a hybrid of
daily correspondence/posting, but also a regular publication for(u)m for
'peer-reviewed' new work.
2) (I know this is already happening, but) consciously, actively develop
the proposed SubVoicive Colloquium on the list. Through Lawrence, 'publish'
position papers, propositions, statements relating to the colloquium for
comment. Lawrence, solicit specific papers. And consider doing the same for
critical work as proposed for poetry in (1).
3) It may well and properly be objected that this for(u)m is intrinsically
divisive because of the problem of access. I say, *all forms* have a
problem of access, and this form has the advantage of being free once
you're on the net. If we established the list as the hybrid
proposed/implied above, then it would be a relatively simple matter to
extract those pubications to the list which have been peer-reviewed and
package them in a alternately accessible form (video, radio-broadcast, a
series of tea shirts, tinned alphabet spagetti [all forms used or proposed
by the arts magazine _Engaged_], or *even* an 'on-demand' paper magazine).
The unwired masses could also be encouraged to submit to the current list
readers.
4) It ain't broke, so don't fix it?
5) A magazine of poetics and new poetry: _Address List_.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >
John Cayley / Wellsweep Press http://www.demon.co.uk/eastfield/
1 Grove End House 150 Highgate Road London NW5 1PD UK
Tel & Fax: (+44 171) 267 3525 Email: [log in to unmask]
< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
