Henstoat dies?

Well, I haven't actually met him, but he's been on these forums so much you feel like you have - and I was just giving this news the benefit of the doubt. Very poor taste to my mind. It belies a certain self-obsession which in the end proves utterly boring.

"Very funny joke to those in the know, but could be distressing to casual readers or acquaintances (like Emma). Not clever, Jon and UKA." Yeah, I don't know. From the point of view of Jon/Henstoat, I actually think it is quite funny. It's takes the self-parodying persona that he's created for himself/people have unfairly attributed to him (delete according to taste) to its logically grotesque conclusion. If it was self-published, I'd think it was great. From UKA press's point of view, to do this sort of thing when you're a new publisher and you're also publishing 'serious' books as well seems a bit risky and I'd have some questions about the message it sends out to writers, readers or the wider literary community - when presented in the way it is on the website.

Yeah, the message it sends out to me is pretty dire.

******

Glad you like Hen's book, David. You gave an interesting presentation yourself at the UKA event and, I was delighted to see, sold a good few copies of 'Playground' Re the 'dead' thing, thanks for your dire warning :-), but the authors do need to decide for themselves how they should present their work, don't you think? That's the whole idea of giving the writer a platform to present themselves on, is it not?. If they change their minds later - well, they can do that too, of course. There are many ways to present poetry and literature, just as there are at readings.

*blows rasberry*

rasp or ras? *blows trumpet*

Thank you for that informative and articulate post, Rachel.

Any time!

He can't be dead....gods don't die do they?

oh bugger.....he's dead! Must have been the Karma thingie, "What goes round comes round!" Rest In Peace.....and him being such a lovely fellow as well.

Are you being sarcastic madam?

Moi, sarcastic monsiuer. Non moi reverez je cockesweasel.

"Re the 'dead' thing, thanks for your dire warning :-), but the authors do need to decide for themselves how they should present their work, don't you think?" In a word, "no". For me, this is the difference between being a publisher and offering a facility for self-publishing - both of which are honourable hobbies and professions. A publisher is responsible for both the quality and presentation of the work they publish. I'd be more than happy to accept that the 'warning' I'm offering about this unusual way of presenting a book may be total bollocks. I'm not prepared to accept that UKA Press as the publisher is not responsible for it. If you're not responsible for the work you publish then you aren't a publisher. "There are many ways to present poetry and literature, just as there are at readings." Yes, there are also many ways to amputate a limb but some are more sensible than other.

Don't you think there are levels of co-operation and responsibility? I would have thought that publishers support their writers as far as possible and if they insist on something, the editors and publishers have an obligation to back up the authors with the final say? Exactly to what extent should a publisher or editor control a writer's work and presentation, would you say? Should they do a poll? Ask the author's friends, or non-friends, for their opinions, first? Ask whether other publishers have done anything similiar, and if they have, allow it? Diss their authors if they think something is absurd? Be careful not to risk hurting the sensitivities of someone who may not recognise a blatant/absurd fiction? Send a ghostly message to Orson Welles for hindsight career advice?

Politely tell him it makes him sound twattish? Good to see the old "search for threads that mention UKA or UKA members" facility has survived the update...

Oson Welles was only twattish when he wore the cape and introduced his MYSTERIOUS PROGRAMME - and even then, he had some self-parody in there while he was doing it, so I suppose nobody minded - much. I don't think he was twattish, otherwise, though very self-dramatising; which helped business, of course.

I dont think he was talking about orson. I may be wrong of course.

Ahhhhhhh........... *no, sorry - was only kidding, myself*

The Ronnie Goodyer quote is real. I had no control over that. I like it though - it's suitably theatrical. I agree that UKAPress have to take partial responsibility, but if I don't think they have anything to worry about in that respect.

One more thing: I apologise to anyone who genuinely thought I'd died. That's not really the point of the thing. I rashly imagined that everyone who already knew of me would either a) know straight away what's going on, or b) not give a fuck.

Well, welcome back from the other side, Hen - yeah, little old me thought it might be for real, and that's only because the death of people your age is something close to my heart, so it triggered memories, as I lost my best friend when I was in my early twenties.

I'm sorry to hear that, Emma, and I do apologise - sincerely - for causing you any shock. As I say, I never meant to fool anyone. It's just a presentation device.

Are you coming to Derby then, in a hearse?? ;-)

I don't think so. It's weird - I come from Derby, and would like the chance to go to an event there. But it's too far away for me at the moment. I'm doing badly paid temping work and even the cost of a day trip to London makes me wince. Also, I feel distinctively disliked by ABC at the moment, and have for some time. That might be a version of paranoia, but it makes me disinclined to go. By the way, can I be frank? I found this quite hurtful: "It belies a certain self-obsession which in the end proves utterly boring." See my beliefs about 'self-obsession' in the gen. dis. forum.

Personally I'd reserve the right to say what the fuck I liked on any product, yes product that I'd written or produced whether it be a novel, album, artwork or whatever. If Hen wants to say that for whatever reason, commercial, personal or otherwise, it's up to him. Death affects us all, me recently, Neil Marr even more so, but it's not the biggest crime in the world, even if it's not the best or most original idea. As for that bollocks "If you're not responsible for the work you publish then you aren't a publisher." Move on, everyone else has. get over yourselves dog frog

<> Yeah, well, just my opinion. I can't be held responsible for hurting your feelings by such a comment, it's a comment that applies to an approach to self-representation in relation to your work, so is valid enough on a forum such as this. It applies generally to anyone who might take this approach. You want to express yourself in a certain way that is provocative, so you have to accept that people will comment in whatever form. You've learned how your approach reaped a varied response, and I didn't expect an apology, it wasn't necessary. You aren't responsible for what was triggered in my mind when I thought you had taken your own life or been in an accident, you don't know me. Likewise my comment is general and intended to contribute to an interpretation of your approach. That this approach is yours has little significance, it could have been anyone and I would have said the same thing.

"You want to express yourself in a certain way that is provocative, so you have to accept that people will comment in whatever form." It wasn't a case of 'expressing myself' - I write by the rule 'do unto others as you would have done unto yourself', or 'write for other people what you yourself would want to read'. If I came across a poet who was using a dead alter-ego to twist publishing conventions, I would appreciate the joke, the satire, if you will. I would say, "It's about time!" And since no one else seemed to have done it, I did it myself. I suppose I did imagine there'd be a reaction like in this thread - but not when I think highly of people. When I think highly of people, I expect them to appreciate something I would appreciate. And I just don't think presenting a living author as dead is particularly self-conscious. If I were overly self-conscious, I wouldn't draw attention to myself. Self-consciously is, ultimately, shyness. Unless, of course, it is vanity, and if I were vain I would have no problem presenting myself as a living author - I would feel that people should pay me attention just for being what I am, rather than construct a dead alter-ego. So, seeing as the accusation of self-consciousness is meaningless, I usually take it as a subtle kind of insult.

I think it's simply a case of those who know get it and find it amusing, those who were on the fringe don't. It really doesn't matter at all. Who said anything about 'self-consciousness'? I wasn't in a position to appreciate something you would appreciate because I wasn't in the know. In a similar way, pleasing only those you are sure of pleasing is an easy option. It's a clique thing. I don't have a problem with the idea per se, if it was done by someone famous in the public domain, who everyone knew was actually still alive, but was playing with the idea of a 'dead' alter-ego, then there would be some small scope in it, depending on creative talent. All this boils down to is that I thought a young man who participated regularly in our forums might have lost his life. I reacted to that news in my own way, as a mature person who has experienced some significant tragedies in my lifetime, and felt sorry. It isn't surprising, therefore, that I should then feel something other than amusement when I discover that it is a literary game. I am now in a position to see it for what it is, and it doesn't really ring my bell, but that's just my own view. If being unable to enjoy something that you enjoy gives you a poor opinion of me, particularly in a context in which I was unable to 'get it' because I wasn't 'in the know', then I would have to say you were pretty narrow-minded and in need of approbation in order for the ego to function. At your age, we all need that to some degree, so I don't judge you for it at all.

'If I were overly self-conscious, I wouldn't draw attention to myself.' Well, I think statements like that bely a certain self-obsession which in the end proves utterly boring. Your other comments were rendered unreadable by the self-consciousness of youth.

btw, is 'sourcery' deliberately misspelt on that UKA page? Substitute 'can' for the word 'and' in the first line of my above post, sorry.

Sorry - I meant 'excessive self-consciousness', which I interchanged with your 'self-obsession'. It's basically the same thing - dwelling on oneself at the expense of everything else. Seems to be some kind of British hang-up, like mentioning the war in Germany. As I said initially, I didn't intend for anyone who knew me to genuinely think I'd died. I can understand how that changes the ballgame, but it's got nothing to do with the project itself. It's an administrative error. The idea itself, sans that element, it is neither in poor taste, nor self-obsessive, nor 'student humour'. Such analysis is lazy. Also, being famous already would fuck the whole thing up - it would lead to more people going through the shock process that you did, and would remove the entire point (I wanted to present a debut collection as a 'collected poems' - if I was famous already I could just do a collected poems anyway.) You seem to think the idea was to fool people into thinking I'm dead. "In a similar way, pleasing only those you are sure of pleasing is an easy option. It's a clique thing." No - it's putting faith in people to be on the same level as you - to not be unreachable drones. It's the only option for writers who don't think of their readers as animals to be fed and slopped out. You have to go on the premise that people will feel the same things as you do, or else you must be writing for some theoretical 'Reader' - a machine that gives you money if you enter the right codes into it. I think that kind of writing is very cynical indeed. No, 'sourcery' isn't a deliberate mis-spelling. I genuinely thought that was an alternative spelling of it.... to the extent that I thought 'sorcery' was an archaic spelling, in fact. I've just checked it and wonder why I thought that. I guess it suggests something slightly different now. It'll have to be my own 'Shakespear's Sister'. Tim - I got the joke the first time.

Ok, I'm a lazy unreachable drone who thinks of her readers as needing to be fed and slopped out! No - you need to put faith in yourself that you can reach people who haven't necessarily got the same ideas as yourself - bring them to your level, rather than aiming at people you already know will hear you. It would be utterly boring if all readers were on the same level as me; there would be no sense of satisfaction in 'tweaking' the mind of someone a little. Self-obsession and self-consciousness are different, excessive or otherwise. Yes, aspects overlap, but a self-obsessed person isn't always shy, frequently the reverse in fact, and a self-conscious person isn't necessarily self-obsessed. No - I don't now think the idea was to fool people that you were dead, of course not, but that was one of the effects of what you did, like it or not. I believed you thought it funny to make people think you had died. But if you are saying a famous person could not bring it off because we would all know they were still alive, then you are saying that you want people to think that the writer of your collection is dead. How clear is that? It's only a trick or joke to those who know you. Many people know of you, Hen, and many people don't know you at all. Your real self is not necessarily discernable from other pseudonyms that you use, for those of us who aren't aware. I was saying that a famous person who we knew was still alive could produce a book of poems/writing as though it were by someone dead, a self-contained collection which was artificially designed to reflect an entire oeuvre by someone who had died, a game in writing to a certain style, in the manner of someone else - as though a character in a novel had written poetry, and subsequently died - the poems of Adrian Mole post-suicide. We all would know Sue Townsend wasn't dead. It could still be seen as a literary device, even if everyone knew the actual writer was still alive. Tell me more about what you were hoping to achieve through this idea.

Well, let's straighten out the misunderstandings first. "But if you are saying a famous person could not bring it off because we would all know they were still alive..." I'm not. I'm saying there would be no point in a famous person doing it because a famous person can already play on their image in the presentation of the book. They have nothing to gain by adopting a persona, which is what I've done. "It would be utterly boring if all readers were on the same level as me; there would be no sense of satisfaction in 'tweaking' the mind of someone a little." Perhaps 'the same level' is the wrong phrase. Essentially, I agree that you want to reach people with your ideas. That's what writing is - reaching out. But what I meant by 'the same level' is that they have to be prepared to let you in. You have to have faith that any reader will meet you half way. Some won't, but you're writing for the ones that do. Any writer who thinks they can go *all* the way - ie. reach any reader, no matter who they are - is deluding themselves. The further you go in trying to accommodate for everyone, the more you're writing for the mundane lowest common denominators of humanity. It's like trying to make everyone like you - all you'll end up being is Universally tolerated, without actually making any friends. Now, I try to treat other people the way I would like to be treated, and that way, there are certain people I end up getting on well with, and others who it's best to stay away from. It doesn't mean all the people I get on with are exactly the same as me, or that I cannot 'tweak' them - it just means that we see eye to eye. I don't work out rules or tricks by which I can make myself popular, and really, my writing is just a long-distance version of that. The process behind the idea for the book is as simple as can be. a) I was not happy with presenting a first collection the way poets conventionally do - with the poems bare except for a few platitudes. I know how hard it is to get people interested in such collections because I have very rarely bought one myself. It struck me as foolish to make the kind of book that I myself am rarely interested in. b) I thought about why I was tempted to buy certain poetry collections - looked at the ones on my shelves. The ones I found easiest to approach often had a picture of the poet on the front, and biographical notes on the back that made the poet sound like a sort of character. In the majority of cases, these poets were dead, and someone else had written an introduction to the poems. I always find these introductions very useful. c) Because I liked that style of presentation, I decided to mimic it. This necessitated, firstly, a poet persona that I could distance myself from, and secondly, a critic persona to write the blurb and introduction. I did my best to make both into the kind of person I would engage with. d) In addition, I did see the merit (in terms of arousing attention,) in this fakery. I realised it was the same kind of thing as Rabelais was doing when he wrote "La Vie de Gargantua et de Pantagruel", the first mock myth, or Jonathan Swift, when he wrote his mock essay on how the Irish should eat their own children. For want of a less sullied word, it's satire. It's poking fun at convention. It's not earth-shattering, but it's exactly the kind of thing I like.

Ok, I can see the fun in that. So you're milking the satire for all it's worth - what's the relationship between the content and the persona of the dead poet?

That was a tricky one. I didn't want the persona to be toally different from me because it would jar with poetry that is, essentially, by me. It's basically a kind of caricature. I took the sort of things that are a bit scandalous (my youth, some of the things I've gracelessly opined about the aged, a degree of flambouyancy etc.) and I exaggerated them. Then I mixed in a little outright fiction (the death, publishing my first volume at 16,) and a whole caboodle of straight-laced honesty (my beliefs about poetry, my family background, the CWS nude calendar) to create what I hope is an engaging sort of a character - not totally unreal, but also not a straight-to-paper version of myself. The idea is that - as with poetry itself, and any other art - the artifice is part of the message, not just window-dressing.

'what's the relationship between the content and the persona of the dead poet?' Emma - nooooo! Don't ask him *that*! The server 'll collapse under the strain!

Nonsense. It's like an interview question.

Why does a rokkitnite spell bely funny? *a riddle*

Put me down as a 'b'.

Needless to say. Oh, no - sorry - you *do* need to say it, don't you? Makes you feel proud of yourself.

Despite the fact that I didn't like the dead poet stuff, I'm sure it's not true that Jon would be unwelcome at an ABCtales event or that he's "generally disliked" as he's been a regular and talented contributor to the site. Having a spat with George - or anyone else - isn't the end of the world. Hope you stay in touch, Jon.

I'd second what Neil says.

yerrrp... me too. (even after this thread)

"If I came across a poet who was using a dead alter-ego to twist publishing conventions, I would appreciate the joke, the satire, if you will. I would say, "It's about time!" And since no one else seemed to have done it, I did it myself." I agree, I thought it was funny but with a number of risks. "When I think highly of people, I expect them to appreciate something I would appreciate." If you do have problems which are connected to youthful precociousness, this may be the route of them. "Author: dogfrog (---.ipt.aol.com) Date: 09-11-04 00:24 Personally I'd reserve the right to say what the fuck I liked on any product, yes product that I'd written or produced whether it be a novel, album, artwork or whatever. If Hen wants to say that for whatever reason, commercial, personal or otherwise, it's up to him. " Of course he does - assuming either he or someone else is prepared to publish it. As far as I can see, now one's threatening to stop him from doing so. The issue, and the discussion here is about how other people might react to it. "Death affects us all, me recently, Neil Marr even more so, but it's not the biggest crime in the world, even if it's not the best or most original idea. As for that bollocks "If you're not responsible for the work you publish then you aren't a publisher." Move on, everyone else has." I'd appreciate an explanation of how this position can be moved on from. Either you're responsible for publishing something - in which case you're a publisher - or you're provide a number of services in order to enable someone to publish their own work - in which case, you're not a publisher. I understand that new technologies mean that it's become increasingly possible for writers to produce and market books without going through publishing companies in the conventional sense. I don't see how that makes any difference to the question of what is or isn't publishing. Please enlighten me.

Why does it bother you, though? Is it because you are a conventional 'conventional publisher'? Why worry about someone else's publishing business? Why be so desperate to define various kinds of publishers - why get so upset? Is someone taking something from you, in some way - some dignity or status perhaps? because you yourself have the covers of your books designed and blurbs written entirely by conventional publisher blurb writers and your regular cover people who have 'always done it that way'? Is there no room for anything else, within the scope of 'conventional publishing'? Why worry so desperately?

Hen: "When I think highly of people, I expect them to appreciate something I would appreciate." David: "If you do have problems which are connected to youthful precociousness, this may be the route of them." Reading it again, I think that was phrased badly. What I mean is, you can't write defensively - keeping in mind all the things people might criticise, and preparing defensive manouevres in the text, explaining everything that might be taken badly. David Flusfeder said he did that while he was on the MA and it set his writing back six years. You have to write for the reader that will meet you half way. There has to be a sort of assumption that the work will find the audience its meant for, like message in a bottle. So when I write, I *am* going on the intuition that a reader will appreciate what I appreciate. Without that, you can't be at your best, and you can't make jokes (I mean, do you ever tell jokes that you don't think are funny, but you suppose will work because you've calculated that the majority an audience like that kind of thing?) If it doesn't work for some people, fair enough, but often it's as much the audience's 'fault' as the writers. If I didn't think that, I would have to demand that every writer who I didn't like immediately start writing like Kurt Vonnegut! For the record, I don't think I have problems with youthful precociousness. I think other people have problems with youthful precociousness ;-) As for the events....(take a deep breath, I may go on for some time.) I don't want to put blame on anyone here, but I personally feel my contributions to the forums here have led, for whatever reason, to people getting the wrong idea about me. You know this. I don't really recognise myself in the ABC mirror, and this thread exemplifies that. My mum & dad, my friends and vague acquaintances, most UKA people, even my publishing tutor (who was rather conservative about publishing,) all responded to the book design as I hoped they would. Only on ABC did the collective presume I was attempting a "hilarious literary ruse", trying to catch you all out, mess with your heads, assert my right to be the next Rimbaud Joyce or whatever. I think, on some level, you mostly agree with Missi that I imply arrogance, pretension etc. in my very way of speaking here. Maybe that's down to the combination of matey conversation and serious written argument that forums encourage, or maybe I'm just shit at making myself clear, but for whatever reason, I seem to spend most of my time here wrestling with (mostly) negative responses. I mean, David's the only one who's actually said he likes an element of the book (which took me a lot of time and effort to prepare, and was *not* just flippantly tossed together under the assumption that nothing of mine could go wrong,) and other than that, it seems, the most generous response is, "It's not really offensive, but it's not good either." How about, "Congratulations for getting a book out at 21?" I know it's the age of POD publishing and everything, but I'd like to think it's still a minor personal achievement. I'll always be around, and I won't say 'no' to events, but let's just say that right now there are places that feel more like home than ABC. So there you go. Simple azzat.

Perhaps there is more honesty on ABC, but you choose to disregard it as it offends your vision of yourself. NO Jon, I'm not trying to wind you up, just offering an alternative point of view that is just as valid as any other. I have no idea who it was that you quoted, but the fact that you'd rather have a congratulatory pat on the back for having your book published at whatever age, than address what was most probably a considered opinion only reinforces my opening statement. Anyone can publish a book these days, but is the book worth the effort? In your case I don't know as I haven't seen it, though I suspect you've given it your best shot.

HA HA HA HA HA No, but seriously - that is *trying* to be patronising and snide just to grandstand, I would think. I don't know, since haven't seen your book on it, but I suspect you have given it your best shot. Pretty funny, though!

No, I don't think there's more honesty on ABC, Missi, though I can understand how you might see it that way. My friends are honest, my parents are honest, and the UKA folk are honest (I've got far more actual criticism from them than I have from ABC). I can trust them to tell me when I'm being a jerk, and I can expect them to tell me what's wrong with something I've done. They have *always* been happy to be critical, because they know that, so long as its fair, I am happy to accept it. What you call 'honesty' is very often second-guessing at my intentions. It doesn't conflict with my 'vision of myself', but my knowledge of my motivations. There's no truth to be found in analysis that is based on the idea that I'm trying to play everyone else for fools, or prove myself as some kind of genius. I picked up on the "congratulatory pat on the back", as you put it, simply because I thought that was what polite people did, and I would expect any other member of ABC to get the same response. It doesn't have to contain an inherent dishonesty if you aren't impressed with the results, any more than holding the door open for someone implies that you like that person. I just thought it'd be nice to be treated like everyone else is for a change.