|
by Kent Johnson
Buffalo '99
"And if you want to survive in show business, don't let
The reason given by then Poetics Administration-functionary Joel Kuszai (soon to resign
as a result of this controversy) was that Gould was consistently "overposting," even
though a review of the site's archives for all of 1998 reveals the latter's cumulative
contributions for any month as averaging out to far fewer than the allowable limit of five
posts per day. In short, the overposting charge struck a number of people as
disingenuous, and some, including myself, wrote to express concern that Gould's
treatment (and the unexplained and unprecedented "disappearance" of some of his
"reviewed" posts) was more plausibly a clumsily-orchestrated ideological maneuver--
one motivated by an irritation with Gould's inspired polemics on behalf of more
"conservative" poetic traditions and a desire to punish his reasoned and rhetorically
brilliant criticisms of "Language Poetry" and its "Post-Language" acolytes.
Charles Bernstein replied to these concerns with two long and indignant missives, in
which he suggested that "dozens and dozens" of innocent subscribers had been silenced
or driven from the List by Gould's purportedly excessive posting. He also alerted
everyone, with a hint of things to come, that membership on a "private List" was "not a
right." [*] While Bernstein's reply reminded everyone that Poetics existed because of his
initial vision and ongoing labor (an undeniable fact for which he certainly deserves much
credit), it did not succeed in ameliorating tensions, and many people became increasingly
upset, including a number of prominent subscribers who rallied with considerable fervor
to Bernstein's defense. These individuals clearly regarded the gagging of Gould as either
deserved punishment or necessary evil, and they variously opined, publicly and privately,
that beneath all the hoopla lay a cabal of malcontents hell-bent on reducing Poetics to
ruins. Insults, on both sides, were hurled.
A few days before he told millions of undoubtedly bemused TV viewers at Rose Bowl
half-time that the Yellow Pages had transformed our idea of the text, Charles Bernstein
closed down the Poetics List for the purposes of "reorganization." The List reopened a
few weeks later, "reorganized" as a "moderated" site whose emphatically-stated central
purpose was to be a "bulletin board" for poets to announce their publications, readings,
awards, etc.-- in effect, something of a Yellow Pages for poetry products. Discussion-
threads of issues relating to critical and theoretical matters would be, it was made clear,
curtailed and subjected to the "editorial" intervention of the List Administration. Henry
Gould was summarily denied subscription rights to the newly "moderated" List. Gabriel
Gudding, a prize-winning young poet who had recently committed the indiscretion of
writing elaborately theatrical ripostes to Marjorie Perloff, leading critical champion of
Bernstein and other "Language" poets, was likewise barred, as was FlashPoint editor and
left media critic Carlo Parcelli, who had been one of the most vocal opponents of Gould's
straight-jacketing. These writers appealed to the Poetics Administration for an
explanation, but only cursory replies mentioning a failure to abide by "guidelines" were
ever given.
Even if it's now obvious that the overposting charge was merely a smoke screen, many
will no doubt argue that the issue is old, fairly insignificant, and not worth troubling over.
The Poetics List, after all, is now back to discussing and debating issues of controversy in
poetry, even issues of international politics, and there is no evidence that those silenced
voices are at all missed. Plus, it is undeniably the case that Charles Bernstein, as the "List
Owner," is legally entitled to regulate his Listserv property any way he sees fit.
All of which is true enough. But there is an interesting and rather glaring contradiction
brought forward in these events that gathers force from the apparent willingness of so
many to passively accept it. The contradiction is this: Charles Bernstein and the brilliant
core of writers who gave rise to the most significant and influential tendency in
American poetics since the end of the Vietnam war claimed to found their aesthetic
politics on principles of unbounded textual openness and inquiry. The political sine qua
non, that is, of a poetics dedicated to clearing ground for imaginative and critical
opposition was (and still, in theory, is) purported to reside in a principled fidelity to
freedom in language-- a radical libertarian poetics ever vigilant of institutional and
ideological pressurings to delimit and deflect its critical spirit. As Bernstein himself puts
it in an essay recently published in Jacket magazine, the writing for which he publicly
stands "represents less a unified alternative poetics than a series of sometimes
contentiously related tendencies, or proclivities, and, especially, shared negations...there
is no limit to those who can, or have, or will participate in this work, which is open-ended
and without proscriptions."
Thus, the banal, punitive censorship carried out by Bernstein and his backers raises a host
of interesting questions, a prominent one being the extent to which a formerly embattled
and combative "avant-garde" (however much that term is poignantly eschewed by its
members) is in the process of submitting and parceling itself into the Literature
Institution's slow but steady artifice of absorption: To be clear, the stoop to censorship
shows itself, at bottom, as a bungling move within an increasingly self-conscious effort
to safeguard and circumscribe the literary pedigree of a once anti-academic, "open-
ended" moment in American poetry. In the harvest time of canonization and
professionalization, one might say, the family tree's best fruits must be unblemished and
waxed for market. The Poetics List's loudly proclaimed status as "private property"
(which naturally includes the "right" to banish trespassers) is perhaps best understood in
this light, for in addition to functioning as a site of discourse, it is also --within the
general economy of contemporary poetry-- something akin to a regional board of
exchange, where commodities and futures are traded, where the upstarts eagerly bid to
gain a foothold, while the big producers hold sway, track the charts, and expand their
holdings. No reason, then, to not proscribe those who would upset the apple cart. It sends
a message and keeps the traders in line.
Of course, Language writing's institutional denouement is only one of the forces
inducing this collective acquiescence to the management of speech and power, but it's an
important one. And it's a safe bet that future chroniclers of our literary fin de siecle will
pay some attention to the layered and embarrassing meanings of this "insignificant"
affair.
The first post here, from Jessica Pompeii, provided the occasion for the controversy's
brief reopening. My own second post to Chris Alexander, the last in the sequence, was
denied access to the List. The "PS" is something I've added, hoping Mr. Alexander,
whose writing I happen to admire, will read it. Otherwise, the exchange is self-
explanatory.
-- Kent Johnson
5/99
[* Reasonable suggestions that the individual daily post limit be reduced to two, or that all posts be held-
over until the following day to allow posters to reconsider remarks were apparently disregarded.]
--Jessica
I'm not even sure this is the best time to broach this topic - there
is, however distantly for most Americans, a war on.
What follows is an adapted version of a post sent previously to a
subscriber, in response to his/her objection to my decision not to
forward a one-sentence post. This is not quite the manner in which
I had wanted to address this matter (I have other, prepared material
elsewhere), but it is what I have on-hand at the moment.
Chris
P.S., not wanting to sound singlularly cheerless, I should also
say that my remarks here pertain to "discussion"-oriented posts
of a relatively "straightforward" manner, and not to poems or
other kinds of other writing. (And, being someone who attempts to
push my own poetry in the direction of criticism, rather than
maintaining such a discretion, I realize that there are problems
with all of these terms, esp. and above all the distinction
between poems and other posts.)
-@-
The ideological limits of this list - which is explicitly
and acknowledgedly an ideological space - are laid out in the
Welcome Message that is sent to all subscribers.
Among other requested and sometimes enforced (again, using the
word acknowledgedly) guidelines to the list, you will find that
I've said this is a list primarily designed to address poetry and
poetics, occasionally to address political issues. You may notice,
though it is not there stated because not rigorously adhered-to,
that the explicitly political material I forward generally relates
to an "immediate" situation, e.g., the current war or NATO/US
involvement in such.
You will also find that I ask of subscribers to post
relatively considered and even extensive statements, opinions,
etcetera, and not single lines or single sentences - a position
I am willing to stand by so long as I have the energy, which is
not always. Unfortunately the limits of this list are also to
some extent the limits of my time and energy, since without
further support from SUNY Buffalo (and beyond that institution,
Gov. Pataki and the state legislature etc.) I do this job more
or less on my own.
Now in those instances where a subscriber has taken the time to
articulate a position, and I mean in a considered manner, and
especially though not necessarily in relation to a poetics, I
have consistently forwarded those posts to the list. This could
be said of even a paragraph or a few lines. On the other hand,
I simply do not consider a single line, and one whose challenge
lies more in its tone than its position, to be such an articulation;
and so in this and other instances I have generally not forwarded
said post to the list.
If you want to challenge this list on the basis of aesthetic,
political or ethical practice, that's fine with me - even though
I don't see the particular relevance of *this* statement to this
(poetics) list. But I simply must ask that you do so in a way
that will provoke consideration or sustained argumentation, and
not in an off-hand comment which will provoke more of the like
or be simply ignored. I might add that this would be to the benefit
of your position, as it may be to the benefit of the list.
This list is not a list of my opinions. I happen to disagree
or even in some cases have no developed sense of the issues
that are "discussed" here (though note that my own position
would be to discard the "conversational" tropes that surround
the list). But I do consider it my job to maintain this list
in a form that, to whatever extent possible, furthers concrete
and serious consideration of the issues at hand - even due
seriousness of fooling around, when that happens.
If this is censorship, as indeed it may be characterized, then
I will own that charge in saying (again) this absolutely is an
ideological space, as regards form and content. And so are all
other spaces, however unacknowledgedly.
sincerely, Chris
Chris:
I used to be quite active on this List (an understatement,
perhaps), but since the big arguments of a few months back I've
relegated my involvement to reading the archives now and then. I just
read your post in response to Jessica Pompeii's very interesting
message, including the addendum of your reply to another subscriber
wherein you acknowledge, with laudable candor, the "ideological"
character of the Poetics List. But Ideology, you assure us, has never
kept you from forwarding posts that "provoke consideration or
sustained argumentation."
Since you have opened discussion around the issue of List
"moderation," please accept this post as an honest attempt to provoke
consideration around a specific matter that has troubled me.
Please understand that I do not offer these concerns in the spirit of
starting another round of angry accusation, which I admit having
contributed to when the controversy was at its height. I am simply
asking for clarification so as to better form my overall opinion
about the List's transformation, and I hope you or Charles Bernstein
will be able to offer a response.
So here, in the form of a few pointed questions, is my concern:
Does the enactment of the List's "ideological character" mandate, in
addition to your daily surveillance of posts, the denial of
subscription rights to certain poets? More specifically, are there
poets who were previously members of this List who have indeed been
denied subscription? If this is not the case, then I apologize for
being misinformed, and I hope to soon see again, for example, the
provocative and thoughtful posts of Henry Gould, who seems to be
under the impression (at least when I spoke to him in Providence a
couple months ago) that he is _not_ permitted to rejoin the List.
So what, after all, is the story? If it _is_ the case that certain
people have been, so to speak, B92ed from the List, could you
explain exactly why? Now that the List is a self-conscious and
self-proclaimed ideological space enjoying the benefits of a
benevolent panopticism, one effectively designed to keep discussions
"on track" and to squelch any drift toward "over-posting," what would
be the rationale for banishing someone as passionately committed
to the art of poetry (however idiosyncratic one might judge his
aesthetic commitments to be) as Henry Gould? Or, for example,
for excluding Gabriel Gudding, who could easily be prevented under
the new rules from airing anything undiplomatically critical, but who
might be allowed to share, here and there, the gift of his mordant
intelligence?
All in all, IF it is true that there have been poets "ideologically"
excluded from List membership, isn't it actually the case, Chris and
Charles, that you ARE, in practice, preventing posts that might
"provoke consideration or sustained argumentation" from coming to the
List's attention? Now that a center of authority and control is
clearly established, why not invite _all_ poets to submit their
"considered argumentation" to the moderator's deliberation? There
may, of course, be those who will not wish to participate under such
conditions, but it certainly can't hurt to make the gesture.
If my questions here are in any way informed by faulty assumptions, I
ask you to please post this anyway and then publicly point out my
misconceptions. I know that other people share these concerns with
me, and so a simple clarification would be a positive thing, even if
my error should bring me some embarrassment. Thank you.
On another note, and just up-- The Nation has an important special
issue devoted to NATO's war. All articles are available at
http://thenation.com/
Kent
Kent - As you know, I withheld your message of friday until today;
it having been addressed to me by name, I felt it my due at least to
have the chance to read it before sending it on. Now that I have
read it, I can say that - if not gladly - I'm willing to respond to your
questions this once, despite the fact that where they lead may be,
whatever your assurances, "another round of angry accusation."
On this count, I leave it to other members of the list to judge for
themselves how the rhetorical tactics you deploy in such phrases
as "B92ed from the List" etcetera balance with those assurances.
Your basic questions, I take it, are these:
1. Does the enactment of the List's "ideological character"
mandate, in addition to your daily surveillance of posts, the
denial of subscription rights to certain poets?
2. IF it is true that there have been poets "ideologically"
excluded from List membership, isn't it actually the case...
that you ARE, in practice, preventing posts that might
"provoke consideration or sustained argumentation"
from coming to the List's attention?
My reply is simply this, that the *specific* ideological cast that
you and your friends have wished to give this issue is a gross
distortion, and tiresome; and that the supposed intellectual or
poetical differences that have comprised this debate are
neither. Instead, we - by which I mean the owners of this list
and its subscribers - have been met time and again with an
empty rhetoric of "free speech" so twisted as to support the
grossest domination; coupled with sustained inappropriate
behavior toward list administrators and fellow subscribers,
as the case may be.
I reserve, as do all listserv moderators, the right to remove
from the list and to deny further subscription privileges to any
subscriber who will not abide by the rules of the list as set
out in the Welcome Message; and this includes "problem"
subscribers that were removed or resigned their subscriptioins
before I took on the task of list moderation. I use the words
"subscription privileges" pointedly - as a little [electronic] bird
just reminded me, list membership is a privilege, never a right.
The obligation to remove such subscribers from the list is one
I take very, very seriously; so much so that I want to address
the specific formulation of the two questions I've quoted above,
in order to be absolutely clear. In the first, you ask me if it is true
that the fact of moderation on this list mandates "the denial of
subscription rights to certain poets." To this I would have to
reply that the task of list management has to do with subscribers,
and not "poets" as such; and that the implication that anyone
has been removed from this list for reasons other than their
behavior on this list is certainly false. In the second question,
you attempt to demonstrate a flaw in the logic of my earlier
claims, to the effect that my actions here *are* preventing
discourse on this list. In answer to this, please refer to my
preceding characterization of the "contributions" to which
you evidently refer. Those who wish to know more may
consult the Poetics List archive, located on the web at
<http://wings.buffalo.edu/epc/poetics>
So in fact, Kent, as you suggest in your post, your questions
are informed by faulty assumptions. I would go so far as
to say that even the assumption that these are questions -
of the kind that want answering - would be faulty. What
you seem to want, rather than answers, is to make further
accusation; and the tenor of your questions bears this
out. What I want is to preserve this list, so shaken by
the actions of a small group of subscribers, some of whom
evidently employed precisely the sort of tactics you employ
in this post, if perhaps less subtly; and whose abuses of this
list and its members directly precipitated my appearance
as moderator.
Now this issue has been given enough time on-list; we have
wasted enough bandwidth. To think that 600 people would
want to be subjected to "another round of angry accusation,"
however cooly made, is too much; not to mention my own
time, which is precious to me.
Chris
% Christopher W. Alexander
Chris:
I doubt this will make it through, since you seem to have declared
a blackout on any further discussion of the issue. But just in case
the "ideology" you serve has not yet _completely_ washed fairness
from your mind, I thought I'd give it a whirl. (Yes, I said I didn't want
any "accusations," but your post is surprisingly hostile and
accusatory, so I respond, proudly, with some indignation.)
You said:
< So in fact, Kent, as you suggest in your post, your questions
In fact, Chris, I sincerely _did_ want an answer, and you have
answered my question quite clearly: The Poetics List
Administration IS a censorship board, and its function is not only to
snip out offending items, but also to disappear writers who don't toe
the party line. Your "moderation" is nothing more than a
euphemism akin to fashionable "humanitarianism": The rhetoric
hides strategic motives, and the "privilege" of membership (in
NALPO, the North American Language Poetry Organization) is
reserved for those who don't test too much the ideology that props
the Organization's power.
Shame on NALPO and shame on NATO too!
Save yourself, Chris, before it's too late.
Kent
(PS: I can see that my "B92" analogy annoys you, and I can
understand that it is hard for you to swallow. But the censorious
impulse is latent in all forms and kinds of power arrangements,
from ultra-nationalist governments to poetry listserves. An ethical
task is to resist that impulse --outside and inside ourselves--
wherever we might be. This is what I mean when I urge you to
"save yourself.")
Buffalo '99 is reprinted courtesy of Skanky Possum magazine, where it appears in Issue 3, Autumn 1999. For copies of this issue contact Hoa Nguyen & Dale Smith at: Skanky Possum, 2925 Higgins Street, Austin, TX 78722, or e-mail them at skankypossum@hotmail.com
|