>It's a bit strange Robin getting upset at being
>edited out of the process he didn't want to continue - rather like
>wanting to be invited to the party so that you could stamp foot and
>refuse to go -anyway, Robin, your lines are still there in other
>versions, no need to sulk about it...
And I thought my questions were coolly neutral, or placid. Just
testing the limits of a collaborative practice which likes to think
of itself as democratic, open, hospitable &c. If I`m regarded as
"upset", in a "sulk" - how would we characterise the emotional
state of the man who composed the odd over-reaction above? and
erslyman`s removal of my lines - no doubt an entirely disinterested
decision. No, the point is - the collaborative poem, if erslyman`s
precedent is allowed to stand, will no longer be a collaborative
poem. You`ll have, as is happening, atomisation of the, what?, eight
or ten lines now existing, into a potentially infinite series of
versions, an initially interesting development which will peter out,
like, tomorrow when we hit the vacuum of no interest. Steered
into an entirely anomic state because at an early stage the
collaboration couldn`t cope with a foreign body and expelled it. Now
we`re drawing up a constitution to regulate input and output...by
Friday afternoon we`ll have a storm of protest after one list-member
makes his or her controversial "Rivers of prose..." speech.
(For Peter...my contribution to the collaborative poem was a
remix of the poem below:)
YOUNG NIETZSCHE
And it
came:
acne .
robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|