Hence much annoyance, hence much biological hazard. Yes, I am sick, and yes, it is news. But it is only a minor cold, only a runny nose and a sore throat. Not even a fever, not even fatigue, not even muscle aches. My immune system is the Batman of immune systems and should kick this cold's arse within a couple of days.
The most interesting part of the conversation on the other hand was the difference of approach between a poetry print journal and an e-zine, Paul being, well, at Gulf Coast and I having worked for Gulf Coast, miPOesias, and now melancholia's tremulous dreadlocks. The usual points were brought up, such how print journal, with a few exceptions, are economically not sustainable, not to mention the various problems posed by the distributors, Ingram and Bernard DeBoer (according to Rob Casper of CLMP, both owe money to most lit mags, except for maybe The Paris Review, A Public Space, Tin House and Ploughshares), that ezines had potentially a wider, more "democratized" audience and more accessible archives. But yes, HTML code has drastic limitations, Macromedia Flash and Java script are extremely arcane, unless you are willing to learn them, most ezines do not push the medium to its fullest extent (except maybe for BORN Magazine, but in the end, it's just poetry with Flash animation) and with a print magazine, you basically have an object. All this is ultimately a discussion of economics and technology.
A couple of days, Ron Silliman had written quite enthusiastically about how the new technologies of the web would change the way poets would write. Yes, technology changes the way we write. We already knew that from Derrida's Of Grammatology. More to the point, K. Silem Mohammad asked how the Internet would affect the reading of the poem in terms of aura (thinking about, of course, Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction")(Jordan Davis also talked about how we could change the way we see poetry, referring to Jessica's foursquare). Paul asked, quite appropriately, if distribution through the internet made the poem more consummable, more disposable. After all, because of its lack of physicality, the ezine poem is more ephemeral (provided that you do not print the poem, which is of course more difficult with Java scripted or Flash-based pages). Once the poem is read, it is quickly discarded to the computer cache, probably forgotten. On the other hand, a poem published in a print journal has a presence-in-the-world (and yes, I am planning to re-read Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art" this week). It is there.
Then, we could also talk about eye fatigue. A computer screen, whether it is a CRT or LCD monitor, is infinitely brighter than a page. It is visually more stimulating and I think, because of the eye being bombarded by this humongous stream of photons, it is a lot harder to read on a computer screen for a long time, unless you want to sacrifice part of your sight.
Now that I think of it, the same considerations apply to comic books and web comics.
***
Ran into Paul Otremba, one of the three current poetry editors of Gulf Coast, at Poison Girl yesterday night. We chatted about Sarabande Books' chapbooks series, agreed (much like Johannes) that Pinsky having a chap was suspect, but that Bidart's Music Like Dirt made sense. We agreed, much like Joe Massey, that a chapbook was really just a book and who cared it was shorter, as long as the poetry was good. On the other hand, I had trouble making my mind whether a chapbook should be an ephemeral object or, if published by a trade press, should be kept in print as long as it's commercially viable. We made comparisons to EPs and LPs (chaps being obviously EPs), and well, some 12 year old EPs are still in print (e.g., Alice In Chains's SAP).The most interesting part of the conversation on the other hand was the difference of approach between a poetry print journal and an e-zine, Paul being, well, at Gulf Coast and I having worked for Gulf Coast, miPOesias, and now melancholia's tremulous dreadlocks. The usual points were brought up, such how print journal, with a few exceptions, are economically not sustainable, not to mention the various problems posed by the distributors, Ingram and Bernard DeBoer (according to Rob Casper of CLMP, both owe money to most lit mags, except for maybe The Paris Review, A Public Space, Tin House and Ploughshares), that ezines had potentially a wider, more "democratized" audience and more accessible archives. But yes, HTML code has drastic limitations, Macromedia Flash and Java script are extremely arcane, unless you are willing to learn them, most ezines do not push the medium to its fullest extent (except maybe for BORN Magazine, but in the end, it's just poetry with Flash animation) and with a print magazine, you basically have an object. All this is ultimately a discussion of economics and technology.
A couple of days, Ron Silliman had written quite enthusiastically about how the new technologies of the web would change the way poets would write. Yes, technology changes the way we write. We already knew that from Derrida's Of Grammatology. More to the point, K. Silem Mohammad asked how the Internet would affect the reading of the poem in terms of aura (thinking about, of course, Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction")(Jordan Davis also talked about how we could change the way we see poetry, referring to Jessica's foursquare). Paul asked, quite appropriately, if distribution through the internet made the poem more consummable, more disposable. After all, because of its lack of physicality, the ezine poem is more ephemeral (provided that you do not print the poem, which is of course more difficult with Java scripted or Flash-based pages). Once the poem is read, it is quickly discarded to the computer cache, probably forgotten. On the other hand, a poem published in a print journal has a presence-in-the-world (and yes, I am planning to re-read Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art" this week). It is there.
Then, we could also talk about eye fatigue. A computer screen, whether it is a CRT or LCD monitor, is infinitely brighter than a page. It is visually more stimulating and I think, because of the eye being bombarded by this humongous stream of photons, it is a lot harder to read on a computer screen for a long time, unless you want to sacrifice part of your sight.
Now that I think of it, the same considerations apply to comic books and web comics.
***
Aren't you glad I finally stopped posting pictures of myself?
Comments