Return-Path: <mbm@pacscl.uarc.upenn.edu>
Posted-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 19:33:01 EDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.fnord-l
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:33:01 EDT
From:         MM <mbm@PACSCL.UARC.UPENN.EDU>
Subject:      hypocrite anarchist

Is it that simple? When you have a bulletin board on which you discuss anarchy,
are you necessarily a hypocrite? How about someone halfway between two ways
of thinking? One of the things I have liked abut fnord--and analytical dis-
cussion of course breaks the spell, breaks the characters, destroys the
pure illusions of persona--is that there hasn't really been "a topic."  I
came onto the list at the time when Salamander's works were unreeling in
pop-eyed madness. I was curious whether any of his text was computer generated,
or what, but the impression I got was that commonsense or analytical discourse
was the usual stuff, and people were experimenting with how much could be
communicated without the usual methods, how many different kinds of things
without the normal discourse. Salamander's poetry, which was my introduction,
was certainly of that type, refusing to participate in any form that might
even be approaching the night BEFORE stale. And however it was produced,
there were bizarre moment and language of a very high order. For me, it was
without question a new kind of poetry. I must admit that I was surprised
that complaints seemed to begin to arrive from somewhere, references, allusions,
whatever they were, about the activity on fnord, as though it was failing as
a discussion group, not sticking to a topic. On other bulletin boards, it is
very tiresome when an idea leads into a direction but members or editor rule
you like teacher. Not on fnord. Was it the re-posting of the official nature
and purpose of fnord that set this off? It's hardly an original thought
that there is something in the nature of traditional discursive prose
that on the instant rules out new forms of language and being.  Talking about
the new is fine, but what is wrong with trying to enact it on fnord? That
seemed to me to be what was happening. I learned things about expression from
Salamander, from Foss, from Merciful Lee Dickens, and others. Language and
attitude combining in new ways, and resistant most of all to cliche.
	I very much doubt that both things can happen on the same board.
I don't think it can be partly analytical discussion and partly the emissions
of personae and dementia.  To me, it feels as though an intrusion of analytic
thought changes the very atmosphere of the board, where it is often difficult
to see, and there are long stretches where you do not meet others, then with-
out explanation beings suddenly speak.  Comments about the nothing happening
on fnord display attitudes which value structure and analytic thought, I
suspect. "Thinking" is of course, or can be, very much more "impressive"
in the usual way; it is also "getting someting accomplished." I would have
liked to talk about Salamander's poetry, but in retrospect, I see how that
would have changed the tone and character of the place, and I am willing to
remain with my questions unanswered in return for the enjoyment of something
which at least resembles anarchy.
	I would like to speak for ten more pages on human nature, but I'll
spare you for three minutes or so.
mbm.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU