A l i s o n C r o g g o n
I hope these posts stand on their own. They were written for a mailing list,
without the intention of publication or further consideration outside the
particular context in which they were written.When Kent Johnson submitted his Lacan dialogues to VeRT, he also
submitted, without permission and in violation of copyright, a selection of
emails from British-poets members to this magazine. British Poets members
objected because the emails were presented as if they were a fair
representation of what had been originally written, when in fact many of
them had been greatly altered, sometimes to mean the exact opposite of
what had been originally said. The editors assert that "the posts had, indeed,
been edited-- though not materially changed": this is in fact not true. Each
one of my own posts either been misleadingly cut, or had been rewritten, or
had parts added which I did not write. I hope this comparison makes clear
how they were changed, and for what reason.I was angered by these changes, which seemed to me extraordinarily
dishonest and, to say the least, self-aggrandising. I still fail to see the
relevance of publishing the British Poets posts to the original work: despite
all Kent's claims, the Lacan dialogues created no especial scandal, apart
from boring a number of people witless by turning up as regularly as spam. I
have no doubt they are better served by being published in their current
form, where they can be accessed voluntarily by those interested.
The editors have agreed to publish the original and altered emails side by
side, so that anyone interested in this minor spat can make up their own
minds.
To read Kent Johnson's reply to this epistle >>
Quoted version (in response to "Jacques's" post involving list members in pornographic scenarios)
Doctored Version:
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:16:29 +1100
Reply-To: masthXXad@XXXXX.NET.AU
Sender: British Poets <BRITISH-POETS@XXXXAIL.AC.UK>
From: masthead@XXXX.AUAs pornography is the ultimate consumerfest, erasing
other(s) entirely in its egocentric miasma of desire, it's unsurprising it
should turn up, although it leaves much to desire as an answer to
alienation; perhaps I am too impatient and miss your irony.
The Lacan posts are, in one word, trash.Alison
Original Version:
Subject: Re: *69*
Sent: 22/2/2001 9:16 AM
To: BRITISH-POETS@JISCMAIL.AC.UKMust be getting foetid in your office there, Jacques.
As pornography is the ultimate consumerfest, erasing other(s) entirely in
its egocentric miasma of desire, it's unsurprising it should turn up,
although it leaves much to desire as an answer to alienation; perhaps I
am too impatient and miss your irony.I, personally, prefer the poem, which is always more complex.
Alison
_____________
Doctored version:
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:01:16 +1100
Reply-To: masXXad@XXXT.AU
Sender: British Poets <BRXXXS@XXAIL.AC.UK>
From: masthead@XXXT.AU
Subject: Re: *69*I fail to see how anything can be made of the Lacan poems. . . .Just deadening and self-mortifying.. . . The orgasm as tiny spasm, the present reduced to the endlessly narrowing
point which Paz has described so accurately, rather than the plurality
and plenitude of times and presences which poetry, when it is not reduced
to a parlour game for the comfortable and the privileged, may open for
both writer and reader.Original version:
Subject: Re: *69*
Sent: 22/2/2001 12:57 PM
To: BRIXXETS@JISCXXIL.AC.UK>what is "the poem"?
>
>(and no "I don't know what it is, but I know what it's not" stuff, or I'll
>send in another "the poem" by Lacan.)
>A poem is a place within language where the other may exist, however
tremblingly, in the meeting place which the poem may reveal in its gaps
and silences, which are charged and made potent by the energies of the
language itself. Therefore erotic and dynamic, and resisting
commodification. Therefore at a distance from pornography, in which
nothing may possibly exist except the desires of the pornographer, in
which, as I said, the other (reader, involuntary character, whatever) is
completely erased, in which desire is static and unchanging; and which
desire is so neatly commodified these days and so entrenched in the mores
of capitalism I fail to see how anything can be made of it as a beacon of
freedom or rebellion. Just a deadening and self-mortifying obedience.
The orgasm as tiny spasm, the present reduced to the endlessly narrowing
point which Paz has described so accurately, rather than the plurality
and plenitude of times and presences which poetry, when it is not reduced
to a parlour game for the comfortable and the privileged, may open for
both writer and reader.I also find the misogyny palpable in all this (and before there are
raised hands and protestations, I might say it was totally given away in
the comment about "hysteria") totally depressing.Alison
_________
Doctored version:
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:18:10 +1100
Reply-To: masthead@XXXX.NET.AU
Sender: British Poets <BRIXXOETS@XXXXL.AC.UK>
From: masXXead@XXXXE.AU
Subject: Re: Bothering
I'm one of those who has often used the deleting argument, having an
inclination towards looser perameters and being fond myself of the odd
random chatting; but after the barrage of pornographic posts which I seem to
have involuntarily joined, I'm with Nate. Maybe I've found my limit. Stop the Lacan correspondence now.
Original version:Subject: Re: Bothering
Sent: 22/2/2001 7:39 PM
To: BRXXXXETS@JIXXXXL.AC.UK>Suggesting that people simply delete what they don't want to read & carry on
>normally is the same as suggesting they try to carry on a normal
>conversation after putting in earplugs to block out a loud noise. & what is
>the _point_ of posting email if all it's going to get is quickly buried
>under a pile of jokes & silly responses from the same four or five people
>who don't even seem to care or know anything about British poetry?I'm one of those who has often used the deleting argument, having an
inclination towards looser perameters and being fond myself of the odd
random chatting; but after the barrage of confusing posts seemingly
copied from subsubpoetics, which I seem to have involuntarily joined, I'm
with Nate. Maybe I've found my limit. I do think the operative word is
"goodwill": it seems an abuse of goodwill to trade on the good nature and
tolerance of others with an aggressively narcissistic display, and then
to cry Unfair! and Censorship! and bring in the dogs of abuse when those
others protest, however mildly. Nor have I required of British Poets
that it talk exclusively and only about British poetry (I do believe Nate
that the list's proper name is British and Irish Poets), not being a
British poet myself and, moreover, believing that poetry needs no
passport. Although I am, you know, a British citizen... The discussions
here over the years about poetry have been educational and illuminating
for me, and I have felt able to be an outsider, as it were, within them.It's true that British Poets isn't as interesting as it was. Which is a
shame.Alison
------------------
Doctored version:
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:59:50 +1100
Reply-To: masthead@XXX.AU
Sender: British Poets <BRITISH-POETS@XXX.A.UK>
From: masthead@XXXNE.AU
Subject: Re: List PoetryI really can't stand this. . . . I suppose if you manage
upset a whole lot of people by thoughtless, abusive, time-wasting or
malicious emails, you're obviously a genius? (Obviously).The Lacan dialogue is being greeted here, actually, by an enormous unechoing
silence.A
Original:Subject: Re: List Poetry
Sent: 24/2/2001 1:59 PM
To: BRITISH-POETS@JIXXXX.AC.UK
>It's the raw investment of attention that qualifies writers as important.
I really can't stand this: attention by whom? what kind of attention?
what do you mean, nobody's paid attention? you mean, attention "visible
to others on the public part of this list"? you mean, if you manage
upset a whole lot of people by thoughtless, abusive, time-wasting or
malicious emails, you're obviously a genius? (Obviously).I mean, with those sorts of values you should have a nice fat job in tv
current affairs.The Lacan dialogue was greeted here, actually, by an enormous unechoing
silence. Until somebody asked why the room was empty.A
---------------
Doctored version:
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 07:38:32 +1100
Reply-To: masthead@XXXXNET.AU
Sender: British Poets <BRITISH-POETS@XXXXL.AC.UK>
From: masthead@XXXXNET.AU
Subject: Re: backchannelJacques's and Kent's inability to see how insulting and aggressive
their Lacan postings could be was bizarre.Original:
Subject: Re: backchannel
Sent: 26/2/2001 7:23 AM
To: BRITISH-POETS@JXXXIL.AC.UK> i do not believe they
>set out to destroy it.Neither do I; but their inability to see how insulting and aggressive
their own postings could be was bizarre, and their sudden withdrawal into
innocent woundedness even odder. I'm _not_ talking about the Lacan; I'm
talking about the sheer bulk of postings over several weeks, and also
postings describing people as assholes, tightasses, nobodies and so on ad
nauseam (or were they not abusive?), or certain patronising posts to me,
which got up _my_ nose; and also I didn't appreciate being drawn into
Kent's would-be pornographic scenarios. Why? Because I'm a humourless
bitch, of course. I don't know who's backchanneling, or why, but it
seems a little pointless.And no one's been banned. Why are people talking as if they have been?
Even now Jacques and Kent would be welcome, if they would stop behaving
like small children with ADD who need the attention of everyone in the
room, and desisted throwing the contents of their nappies at us.I think, despite the difficulties, Elizabeth and cris have been right to
take the tack they have. The up-side of all this is that it's made many
of us consider why we value this list, and one of its values (to me) is
in fact its openness, which has been created by a certain ethos of
self-responsibility (that boring, dull virtue) among list members. (A
friend of mine who runs a shelter for abused children has signs all over
the place which say NO RIGHTS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITIES). I feel that
would be compromised by some of David's suggestions. I do think that's
the easy way out; I would feel something was lost if suddenly we were
hedged about with all sorts of legislations. But I do understand, in the
light of the recent provocations, if others feel otherwise.Alison
Doctored version:
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:56:33 +1100
Sender: British Poets <BRITISH-POETS@xxxxAIL.AC.UK>
From: masthead@xxxx.AU
Subject: Re: Dear Jacques LacanI have noticed that British Poets has gone very quiet lately.
This might have something to do with ennui caused by this continuous
barrage of obscenity, masquerading as parody.Alison
Original:
Subject: Re: Dear Jacques Lacan
Sent: 19/2/2001 5:55 PM
To: BRITISH-POETS@XXXXIL.AC.UKI have noticed that British Poets has gone very quiet lately.
This might have something to do with ennui caused by this continuous
barrage of obscenity, masquerading as parody. I'm beginning to
sympathise with Peter Riley.Kent, I can take a joke, but this is dull.
Alison
<<