 |
 |
Yup. Years ago a then-girlfriend told me intimate details of her family life that I was greatly tempted to use in a short story. No one who didn't already know those details would have recognized them and associated them with my friend, and the likelihood that she or they would ever see it, given my relative invisibility, was nil. But I was unwilling (and still am) to take that chance: if she came upon it it would be too hurtful to her. So I haven't written the story--that would present too much temptation. In the case of the mug shots, I think your last option, Hal, would have been the one to go for--don't sell them, and display only in museum shows, like the other exhibits I mentioned. Which doesn't obviate the issues of privacy. But they do have value as record and also pictorially. I can imagine them in an archive, although, given how few locations were represented, and the relatively small number from any one source, its value as such would be extremely limited. Especially don't do a limited edition of poster-size prints. A bit more detail: the four chosen for special editions were among the most recent. One was of a pretty young woman, certainly no older than 25, with bleach-blond hair, dark roots showing. There was no documentation. Prostitute? Shoplifter? Caught with a joint? Inmnocent of any crime? The print was cheaply-done on cheap, lightweight paper. She was being treated as trash in every sense. As foul as the curator's intentions were, those of the buyers were still more painful to think about. How did they want their friends to react when they walked into the livingroom? I also wonder about legal issues. Are police departments allowed to sell pieces of the public record? Mark At 11:19 AM 9/17/2006, you wrote: >And you made the decision, Andrew, which like Randolph, I can >applaud, but I also applaud Jolley, who has always impressed me, for >her forthright defense of your right to publish anything you write. > >Doug >On 16-Sep-06, at 8:41 PM, andrew burke wrote: > >>Yes, the complexity came for me in the clash between ethics and ego: >>when I am offered publication, I am pleased, and sometimes that >>overrides my sense of values - eg, if the poem is ready yet or even >>any good. I always try to teach writing students that publication is >>not the final arbiter of your work's worth - YOU are. But I am easily >>seduced. >> >>Andrew >> >> >>On 17/09/06, wild honey press <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>Andrew, >>> >>>just a gut reaction, but I feel you did the right thing. It's a very complex >>>area, but corny as it sounds, I'm proud of you! >>> >>>best >>> >>>Randolph >>> >>> >>> I asked Elizabeth Jolley once >>> > if I could publish a poem about her and her husband because it painted >>> > a not-so-flattering image of him (and he was very ill and not capable >>> > of 'defending himself'), and she said, 'Publish anything you like. I >>> > believe in absolute free speech.' I am yet to be tested if I believe >>> > in that much free speech. (I didn't publish the poem. I >>> > self-censored.) >>> > >>> > Andrew >>> > >> >> >>-- >>Andrew >>http://hispirits.blogspot.com/ >>http://www.bam.com.au/andrew >> >Douglas Barbour >11655 - 72 Avenue NW >Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9 >(780) 436 3320 >http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/ > >Latest book: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy) >http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664 > >Where philosophy stops, poetry is impelled to begin. He was >a man, far away from home, biting his nails at destiny. > > Susan Howe