forgodot Issue # 1

there's a whole lot of discussion going on in blogland over this http://www.forgodot.com/. some people getting pretty pissed and others feeling confused or amused. some people being excited and taking it on as part of the particular moment poetry is in right now. others who were not included finding out and wishing they were in (it is a hoax of sorts, so go figure that one) and yes, i'm in for(godot )and glad i'm in. although some local bloggers must have skipped my name in the trawl through nearly 4000. it's ok, no problem. we all found our own names first didn't we or our mates names or people who matter in the big game, we found their names?

i think that's the point. on one of my comments either on the forgodot blog or the silliman one, i mentioned the fact that we are all our own/our only best readers. i've read heaps of the poems and some suck big time, others are so close to contemporary compositional mode, that they are good - but good only if you wrote them - or good enough to want to write like that or something. it is writing and some or most would be better than the stuff that comps receive.

i don't think the point of this project is to seriously tackle the incestuous world of contemporary poetics, but it does now doesn't it? and i like the way it provokes re the comments and the tough talk about law suits. i think the point is that we will either join in or we won't, we will accept that it is possible to compose by computer generated methods and that we can't or don't own words.

i have completed more than eight pages of computer generated poetry now using erika, trying first the source 'emily dickinson collected' and then the source 'heart of darkness' using hinge, lyric and fragment. it offers a selection of language strings to poach. i'm into poaching bits i like and putting those together, linking with my own words or not linking. i don't see a problem with this form of composition. it fast tracks production. is it good work? do i own it? who cares?

i think the timing of Issue # 1 is essential and the impact is long over due. too much weight is placed on cluster group and individual reputations. on names and product marketing. putting us all together with the dead and famous poets is saying something about egos and they got me excited about poetry again. i think that for me, it is a matter of why write and finding an answer. write via inspiration only, (and pretend that this is pure and it will be my reward) or mix it up, computer generate and inspiration, become a lyric poet again, go full on post avant, write to a journal or publishers agenda, write for the blog, write for myself - why write?

and one of the things that Issue #1 has made really clear is the fact that only poets care about poetry, and only then their poetry and the public have been lost to us for too long. we have imploded by the sheer weight of our earnest outpourings, our savvy positionings, our careerist agendas. the full impact of Issue #1 is an authorless, computer generated anthology, which has used in no particular order all the names connected with online publishing, or blogging and the editors have used us (or who we are in our names only) without fear or favour, without judgement or concern for quality or style - and no one gets the gong, and we all get the gong.

It's like the selection pool for the many 'best of' - which one will you select, (aside from your own) and will the fact that a big name is attached make it a better poem...just for the record, i really think john tranter is a great guy, but in this anthology, my poem is so much less awful than his one is (sorry john, but if anyone gets it i'm sure that you do).

here's my Issue #1 poem from page 3527

Bearing turned into immensity

A voice of parts
Of presence
Voicing
Sake
A voice

Stand
The immortality of glee

A flower of laureates

Louise Waller