I don't know, Mark, why 'we' persist in calling this
collaboration. I guess I do out of accepting the term
as Geraldine posited it in her essay and out of
accepting the term in subsequent discussion. But I've
just touched upon this a little in my post in reply to
Stephen, as I do think that 'collaboration' or
'correspondence' does involve mutual volition,
relationship. 

 >Why isn't it
> appropriation? I'm 
> guessing that "collaboration" sounds more important,
> and 
> "appropriation" less politically-correct--though
> Donne is hardly a 
> pre-literate society.

I think 'appropriation' is a more disturbing term,
since it suggests just using another's work to one's
own benefit and process, which makes writing then much
more like other industrial processes and the exercise
of arbitrary power over what belongs to another, and
so there's a great reluctance to use it. Particularly
when the work undertaken is aware of the issues of
'appropriation' and is partly attempting to reply to
larger, political, social agencies of appropriation
and use. 

 'Collaboration' evokes relationship, a mutuality
where none may actually exist if one is
'collaborating' with a dead author's work. But to say
'collaboration' also evokes the idea that one is less
egotistic, not so driven to one's own benefit and
process and language and thought as to allow another's
work actually 'in', into the shaping of the work, etc.

So I think it is a political and polite usage of
language, in order to evoke relationship, to suggest 
that one is part of a process that includes another,
open to the real possibilities and fluidities in
mutual volition. And perhaps using 'collaboration' to
describe using a dead author's text and engaging with
it, as one does with any text, does result in a kind
of degradation of the term itself. For then does one
call collaborating with a living author a 'real'
collaboration, an 'actual' collaboration?  to
differentiate? and if we don't differentiate, then do
we dispense with the idea of mutuality or volition
altogether? 

I should say too that this is not particularly hinged
to Geraldine's poem, except as it leads to a
discussion of these terms and the issues involved. I
like her poem. Nor am I arguing about permissions,
since I think writers will continue to use the texts
of dead authors for their own works. My questions are
more to do with the language used to describe those
processes and the assumptions which are embodied in
the terms and which often result in conundrums like
the author writing against particular modes of
appropriation while engaging in the modes of
appropriation that are available within the process of
writing.


best,

Rebecca
--- Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This isn't directed at you, Rebecca--just a
> convenient place to jump 
> in. Why do we/does Geraldine/persist in calling this
> collaboration? 
> Doesn't that involve mutual volition? Why isn't it
> appropriation? I'm 
> guessing that "collaboration" sounds more important,
> and 
> "appropriation" less politically-correct--though
> Donne is hardly a 
> pre-literate society.
> 
> Mark
> 
> At 08:07 AM 2/15/2006, you wrote:
> >Ah, sorry, David, Saba!  the wrong name came to my
> >late night memory, but there was at times little
> >direct connection between your version and the
> Italian
> >original,  and many poets have done this, writing
> >'versions' from an original, so it's not a
> criticism,
> >but just my wondering at the difference/s between
> >these various ways of collaborating with the dead?
> >
> >best,
> >
> >Rebecca
> >--- David Bircumshaw
> <[log in to unmask]>
> >wrote:
> >
> > > > > the Donne poem
> > > > > she exploits has no direct connection with
> what
> > > > > she's writing about,
> > > >
> > > > Does this matter? for instance, I thought
> David's
> > > > 'Ungaretti' version at times had little direct
> > > > connection with the original.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It certainly didn't have any connectiuon with
> > > Ungaretti as the original was
> > > by Umberto Saba.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "R S" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:12 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Fascicle 2
> > >
> > >
> > > > Oh, well, actually I like Geraldine's poem,
> which
> > > I've
> > > > previously read, and don't find that she
> > > 'exploits'
> > > > Donne though there are moments where the
> > > repetition of
> > > > the 'no' and 'the body' seem to have a sort of
> > > > dissipating effect.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, I have wondered at this
> issue
> > > of
> > > > collaboration with the dead ever since I read
> > > Lucie
> > > > Brock-Broidio's _Master Letters_ which is
> based
> > > upon
> > > > Emily Dickinson's 'master' letters,  or Amy
> > > Clampitt's
> > > > poems on Keats or Lynda Hull's poems on
> Tolstoi,
> > > or
> > > > Edward Hirsch's poems on Weil. I guess it
> could be
> > > > argued that the principle of post-modernism is
> > > > cannablism, that all texts even those by
> > > exceptional
> > > > writers, are meat to be digressed, digested
> into
> > > new
> > > > cells. And what's the difference/s between
> Monk
> > > > collaborating with Donne or David's recent
> version
> > > of
> > > > Ungaretti or Stephen's 'Sappho' and 'Stein'
> poems
> > > > which may bear little or varying degrees to
> the
> > > > original and use it as a springboard? So in
> that
> > > > sense, I guess I wonder more at Monk's essay
> that
> > > > accompanies the collaboration, is it because
> she
> > > is
> > > > collaborating with the texts of canonical male
> > > writers
> > > > and so has to create a framework to do so?
> > > >
> > > > > the Donne poem
> > > > > she exploits has no direct connection with
> what
> > > > > she's writing about,
> > > >
> > > > Does this matter? for instance, I thought
> David's
> > > > 'Ungaretti' version at times had little direct
> > > > connection with the original.
> > > >
> > > > > in the second it is not a good idea to
> > > extensively
> > > > > quote someone who
> > > > > is so obviously a better writer, the whole
> thing
> > > > > reads to me like
> > > > > petulant graffitti
> > > >
> > > > Well, all I can say is that it didn't seem
> like
> > > > 'petulant graffitti', and I do think I've had
> > > enough
> > > > of my share of 'petulant graffitti' to know
> what
> > > it
> > > > is. Anyway, this is just my take on it, I am
> not
> > > > making some Universal Law, so feel free to
> > > disregard
> > > > if it gets your goat,
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > >
> > > > Rebecca
> > > > --- Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ah, a lesson in etiquette. My mind had
> skipped
> > > over
> > > > > all that, which I
> > > > > read as an attempt to understand the why of
> a
> > > poem
> > > > > that Dave couldn't
> > > > > otherwise decipher rather than as a comment
> on
> > > > > Geraldine's
> > > > > personality structure in general. You seem
> to
> > > have
> > > > > remembered the
> > > > > parts I forgot and forgotten the parts I
> > > remember,
> > > > > like "Not a good
> > > > > idea on Geraldine's part I'd say: in the
> first
> > > place
> > > > > the Donne poem
> > > > > she exploits has no direct connection with
> what
> > > > > she's writing about,
> > > > > in the second it is not a good idea to
> > > extensively
> > > > > quote someone who
> > > > > is so obviously a better writer, the whole
> thing
> > > > > reads to me like
> > > > > petulant graffitti," which is perhaps
> impatient
> > > but
> > > > > is certainly a
> > > > > comment on the process of the poem and
> precedes
> > > the
> > > > > things you note.
> > > > > I have no idea, based on what I read,
> whether
> > > > > there's animus involved
> > > > > or just more of that impatience.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm looking forward to Geraldine's NY
> reading.
> > > I'm
> > > > > very intrerested
> > > > > in reading as performance but totally
> > > uninterested
> > > > > in poetry as
> > > > > performance. Somebody said it in this
> > > discussion--if
> > > > > it doesn't work
> > > > > on the page it's something, but not poetry.
> What
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com