"that rogue Nicholas Johnson"

as nobody else will question the phrase, I, as the original perpetrator
will.

You could read the phrase with a sense of humour or irony in the sense
"that" rogue Nicholas Johnson, you know, "good old Nick, he treads on toes
but he gets things done" sense, or

you can take it straight, as in: after his various (alleged) shenanigans
with the administrators and organisers at the South Bank Centre over the
Carl Rakosi reading last year in the Voice Box, he has made it very
difficult for other people (myself included) to convince the aforementioned
organisers that it would be good sense to invite poets to The Voice Box that
contributors, lurkers and others to this list would like to see
read/perform/declaim etc..  It is significant that there have been no
readings by poets from this sector of the poetry world (the avant-garde,
concrete poetry, post-modern poetry, sound poetry) at The Voice Box since
(there had been readings by Douglas Oliver, Alice Notley, Tony Lopez and
Stephen Rodefer in the twelve months before).

So, take your pick.


Simon Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: Alaric Sumner <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 21 December 1998 07:01
Subject: Absolutely irresponsible


>I AM ON DIGEST SO FORGIVE THE DELAYED RESPONSES
>
>dougolly wrote
>>
>>The Buffalo listees, at least, like talking to each other as fellow
writers,
>>without fearing they're going to become engaged in uncomfortable politics.
>
>which prompts me (as a fellow writer) to send fearfully an uncomfortable
>file I had written but not had the courage to send (playfully) in
>(irresponsible) response to Doug's previous post (with various new
>additions):
>
>He wrote:
>>>Wars are caused by mistakes
>
>Whoops! there we go, another mistake another war.
>(Are we all really going in the right direction except for those pesky
>mistakes we keep making?)
>
>>>Global trading has
>>>been a secret driver of these events.
>
>Yeah, wars are not caused by mistakes but by market fluctuations,
>banana-skins of power. Secret?
>
>>>A citizen's best anti-war policy is to increase awareness of these
>>>anticipatory mistakes within his/her own circles: it's part of normal
>>>citizen-
>>>responsibility to try to spread one's sense of good opinion around one's
>>>circle.  No doubt there are other, more immediate actions too -- writing
to
>>>government, demonstrations, etc.,
>
>Try it this way round:
>An anti-citizen's best policy is to war against the 'responsible citizen'
>and take immediate action within his/her own circle to spread revolutionary
>fervour. Demonstrations are a beginning. Writing to governments, on the
>other hand, gives _us_ the sense that they _care_ about our opinions and
>gives them the sense that they are 'good' (listeners). No doubt there are
>other, more, too, etc.
>
>Don't give in to common sense.
>
>>>Poets are not exempt from this (it's part, part only of course, of
>>>their poetic task), and have a slight advantage over the average citizen
in
>>>that their opinions spread slightly more widely. Whether we are
successful or
>>>not (and almost certainly not), our responsibility won't go away.
>
>What responsibility is that?
>Who defines what the 'responsible' position is?
>Is it the one 'all of us' _really_ 'know' is the 'right' one? A consensus
>arrived at _apparently_ 'without influence' because it is 'natural'?
>
>Are 'tasks' poetic? Who are these 'responsible' poets? (Give me the
>irresponsible ones any time.)
>
>>>So much of modern poetry's response to politics is to become preoccupied
with
>>>its own poetics, so that the openness of interpretation shall create a
>>>certain
>>>amount of awareness but no harm.
>>>"poetry can't really deal with these issues"
>
>Poetry can/does (always?) deal with these _issues_, but not necessarily in
>a way that is recognisably essentialist, dogmatic, didactic. Nor,
>necessarily, on the 'responsible' side of the question.
>
>Poetry _is_ its own poetics.
>
>Trust-in-interpretation is the harm.
>
>Make Poetry not Dogma.
>
>Make Revolution not War
>
>Make Vaccines while the Sun still Shines.
>
>The only Good War is Class War. Queer the barricades!
>
>Common (come on!), lets have no more comfortable "new" politics, lets get
>the spiky ones out of the closet.
>
>Doug
>I have been reading your excellent posts on this list for some time and
>suddenly the sense of you being a 'responsible poet' stuck in my craw. My
>sexuality (among other things) has never let me become comfortable with
>responsible citizenship. (In the past, it was the 'responsible' thing to do
>to 'expose' queers to 'the authorities'.)
>
>Lawrence wrote
>>I have argued against poetry being to do with The Truth, but it is to do
>>with honesty; if we are poets then we could at least try to be honest with
>>ourselves and each other.
>
>which surprised me. Poetry is to do with Honesty!? What is The Honest and
>what might its difference from The Truth be? Why demand either in relation
>to the honourable Games of Language? R U telling me I mustn't lie if I am a
>poet????? Poets are the Acknowledged Fabricators of Wordworlds.
>
>But what are Critics?
>
>Especially when they present blatant hatred (personal abuse) of the poet
>and political disgust in lieu of analysis/discussion/response to the work.
>I refer to no one in particular because, for some reason I can't fathom, no
>one is willing to QUOTE an offending phrase from the offending article. I
>had a quick look back at some previous Angel Exhausts on the net (cos FO
>isn't netted). I didn't happen across any howlers - except the old 'yibble
>yibble nana nunu' response to Cobbing (which strikes me as showing more
>about the writer's abilities than Cobbings!). (No, don't remind me. I was
>young and irresponsible.)
>
>In response to Lawrence's post:
>
>>I do also know that the majority on this list have said nothing and I
>>suspect that _some_ of them at least have kept quiet because they lack the
>>courage to speak up;
>
>I really want to know what I might want to say. I hope I haven't just
>missed the postings of the relevant sections (can someone backchannel if
>so). Given my knowledge of both Bill and Lawrence, I fully expect to be in
>support of their stance and, being quite happy to be irresponsible, I am
>willing to declare full and unstinting support immediately without knowing
>anything myself about the subject. I would however be even happier to know
>what precisely I am supporting them against. But, beyond that, if I wanted
>to say something, I would presumably also want to DO something and I have
>seen nothing on the list yet that suggests anyone actually knows what they
>want us to do about AD/DB/TF. Write a letter? Sue him/them? Send him/them
>to Coventry? Iraq?
>
>BTW
>Is no one else going to question the phrase "that rogue Nicholas Johnson"?
>How many people have benefitted from his Tours and Festivals and
>Publications? (both in the receiving and the making).
>Sure, he makes mistakes and has made some bad ones (upsetting a lot of
>people)... but 'rogue' seems completely out of place for someone who is
>doing so much distribution, publicity, promotion of the work of others and
>writing/performing quite interestingly himself. (He is no longer a student
>of mine so I can speak freely at last!)
>
>However, if Doug is right, Nick's mistakes may cause another war. How
>irresponsible!
>
>(No, Doug, it's just a joke. Sorry. I know. You're right: it is
>irresponsible to misuse your words this way.)
>
>Meanwhile, Cliblaintron seem to have had fun spanking Saddy's bottom and
>they are now returning to being responsible(!?) citizens. We wait to see
>what happens next.....
>
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%