wtf? Considering i've never heard of this site until now, and haven't sent it any 'new poems' -- and judging by their being six-hundred plus names (including dead people), and confused comments, i doubt any of the other people/poets have, either -- it'll be interesting to see what happens.
29/9/08: What first came to mind was that they were going to do some kind of appropriation of existing works, or that it was a publicity stunt (this being more likely), though i'm staying open to the possibility of severe fucktardery.
30/9/08: I think this site (for godot) has done exactly what it set out to do: confuse, take the piss, and get attention. Though, the confusion, and not knowing which it is trying to do more, makes it intriguing. It almost sounds as though they're going to do what they say, but it seems more likely that they're making a statement on overpublishing (not that this wasn't apparent initially):
If you're up to it, I'd suggest gulping the [4,000-page PDF] whole, for 83 straight hours of transcendent poetic revelry reflecting the whole panoply of human achievement, emotion, wistfulness, and athletic achievement.
The extreme and impossible '83 hours straight' seems a satirical remark on how much poetry is being published, so much so that it's impossible to read all of it. I may be reading too much into it, and i don't want to turn all
Silliman-esque (no offense, Ron), but i think the most important word in this sentence is 'athletic'. That achievement in poetry has surpassed merit, worth, becoming a feat of resilience and endurance, and perhaps spectatorship; that he/she who runs the fastest, and most, 'gets ahead' of those who run slow or not at all.
(Well, transversely,
Gary Barwin had this to say in the comments:
And everyone should also stay tuned because I'll be publishing a 1/2 page PDF of the work of Vladimir Zykov, Steve McLaughlin, and Gregory Laynor. It will be a valiant contribution to the world of flooring, orange peels, human ectoplasmic dynamics, and parcheesi reinvigoration tectonics.)
It might be a good point, i guess, though if this is what they're saying, it's not as effective/clever as it could be: there are people on the list who have published very little poetry (shit, i've been virtually dormant for more than a year), and many virus-like poets are missing -- some of what's listed aren't even people. Perhaps the 'research' wasn't all that thorough? (I have no idea who these orange-peel-contributors are, and maybe that's their problem?)
4/10/08: Well, looks like they did what they said they were gonna do, sort of. I wouldn't bother reading it; the comments, and everyone's individual reactions to it, are much more interesting (
5/10/08: if a little '
I, I, I!
me, me, me!
mine! Oh god! what about
me!') (i'm unfazed/not bothered, and wondering why i'm writing any of this and accomodating attention-seekers). I really don't find it as clever as they probably think it is; and i don't know who they are to be attacking about three-thousand writers, most of whom have probably achieved more than they have; and i don't understand why they're bothered so much: publishing, while having its sneaky backdoors and ladders, has a talent/relevance/whatever heirarchy.
I wish i had as much time on my hands as these people do.
5/10/08:
Ron Silliman writes a note, which includes the personal phone number and address of one of the people involved. And
Ed Baker notes this -- which doesn't seem entirely serious -- from the comments on the for godot site:
I am so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so very sorry for what I've done. I am a total asshole. That's all that can be concluded from this. Really, I sat down last night and thought about it, and I've just concluded that I'm a terrible sad person starving for attention.
I promise everyone that the entire anthology will be deleted from the site tomorrow. Again, I'm just an asshole, that's the only possible explanation.
Your fifteen minutes have come and gone, and you will, in my eyes, be remembered as a mild pest. Congratulations.
6/10/08: I've seen about a dozen plus blogs discussing this at length; now,
Warren Ellis has a note up.
13/10/08:
The guy explains the origin of it, making everyone parading about the
exceptional genius and hilarity of it sound a little stupid.
Daniel Nester, in the comments, points out what i said above: that this would've been more interesting/noteworthy had it actually been at all clever.
20/10/08: For anyone interested, a contextualising overview of this whole thing,
here, by
Jack Morgan. No specialist terms, and a little background; for those not involved in -- or privy to the (teacup) ins and outs of -- the (online) poetry world.