Dear Nitoo Das,
I beg your pardon for responding to your most erudite essay on hypertextual with my gut reaction but I must say I did not mean to be vitriolic. In fact, I held myself back from doing exactly that.
Before I say much more, please know that I took the time to review some of the links you shared and found the effort an exercise in tedium in extremis until I came across your poem that started with this:
"Listen, I had a voice
hidden in my belly."
Now, that was a delightfully and brilliantly written poem, in my humble opinion, and I suspect I needn't tell you something you already know. The fact that you got comments and suggestions for improving it, if that were possible (from the poetic group where you posted it), is simply reflective of the seeming immediacy of the internet and the speed with which you can get feedback available to a larger, online audience, relative to an offline poetry work-shop.
From others' comments I've read, it appears a school of thought exists wherein authorship has little or incidental value. Yes, the process of poetry relies on previously published works and a poet's cultural ambience, especially, in "found poems." However, I believe there is a misunderstanding about so-called found poems. Using the disparate titles of different books, for instance, to arrange them and create a poem from them is an act of creation--poetry; it is in keeping with the orgin of the word, poein: to create. Surely, one does not presume to take lines from Shakespear's and/or other poets' recognized works ad hoc and "create" a new poem. The titles of books are not all encompassing of the work; a line from the work is not all-encompassing either but it is an integral part of the body of the work and, thus, has greater intrinsic character and value than the title. When one incorporates Othello and
MacBeth into a poem one needn't mention Shakespear because just those words are either easily identifiable by any literate person as to their provenance or they are sufficently discrete as to not invite a charge of plagiarism.
A collaborative effort among poets who know what is being done with their work is a consensual act. Otherwise, it is rape, pillaging, and molestation of the original work and its creator. I am tempted to even say that one ought to get a queasy feeling in one's gut should one change one's poem and present it as one's own work, if even a single word has been suggested by another member of the work-shop, without giving credit to the source of the suggestion: de minimis, the workshop. The fact that it is common practice to omit such credits does not negate the need for it. It is common practice among thieves to steal but the crime still exists. There are even celebrated thieves and forgers yet they are known for their knavery, nonetheless, no matter how artfully executed their crimes.
In short, I suspect we have what I might even posit as being a clash between the concept of authorship and that of sublimating the poet's self and his/her work to a larger continuum, between indviduality and communality. It is one thing to take bricks to create a mansion designed by an architect and another to take photographs of the result and create a replica with "enhancements." Imagine the Taj Mahal with bells and whistles, new and improved. It cannot but serve to denigrate the vision of the architect, the creator of the original. The fact that one used bricks in the creation of the enhanced copy does not mean that the bricks are what the made the building and, therefore, excuse the creation of the copy because the same material was used. It is in the maner in which the bricks were arranged that distinguish one work from another, excpet in the case of cookie-cutter homes. Words are the building blocks for poets and
the fact that all poets use them obviously does not constitute plagiarism. However, when poets take lines from various poems to create another then we begin the slide downward from creation to imitation and, perhaps, the highest form of flattery but not the real McCoy. If you cannot afford an Oscar De La Renta but can create a knock-off, what does it say about the copy other than an acknowledgement that it is a cheap imitation? Which holds its value?
Ere ye delve
into the realm of hypertextual poetry,
'haps, thou shouldst shelve
thy apprehension of,
thy knowledge of,
the origin of,
the essence of
poesy.
I wont presume to define for you what poetry is. Your knowledge of the internet and facility with research avenues must have already acquainted you with the fact that poetry is an act of creation (poein)--not imitation (imitatus). Nonetheless, for other readers' convenience I'll provide a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poem, whence:
"The Greek verb poieo (I make or create), gave rise to three words: poietis (the one who creates), poiesis (the act of creation), and poiema (the thing created). From these we get three English words: poet (the creator), poesy (the creation) and poem (the created). A poet is therefore one who creates, and poetry is what the poet creates. The underlying concept of the poet as maker or creator is not uncommon. For example, in Anglo-Saxon a poet is a scop (shaper or maker) and in Scots makar."
The question then presents itself: Is the creator of the imitation a creator? Of the copy, yes. Not the original. In fact, (s)he is the imitator, not creator.
Therein, lies the crux of my discomfiture with hypertextual poetry, your dissertation ad infinitum, to the contrary.
I choose not to parry �p�es with you regarding my other comments and your ripostes; I will leave the matter as it is.
This is my last interjection on this subject. I believe I've said far more than I expected I would.
My apologies to those I happened to offend, including you, dear Nitoo Das.
Mani Suri
"River ." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear M. Suri,
Did you get this mail as a forward? Subscribe by sending a blank mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTPoets/join.
Members are encouraged to post poetry, their own and others', respond critically to the poems circulated, and participate in discussions. Post via email at [email protected] OR online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTPoets/post.
---theZESTcommunity--------------
[1] ZESTCurrent: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCurrent/
[2] ZESTEconomics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTEconomics/
[3] ZESTGlobal: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/
[4] ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/
[5] ZESTPoets: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTPoets/
[6] ZESTCaste: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
[7] ZESTAlternative: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTAlternative/
[8] TalkZEST: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkZEST/
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTPoets/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Reply via email to
