Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq OP wrote

Should I be offended or flattered that they directly rip off my essay (even reading from it at certain points) without crediting me?

8

Styx wrote

Neither. Be contently smug instead. Originality, intellectual rights, copyright and all other similar capitalist abominations are all spooks. The point is to have these ideas normalised and the end justifies the means in this case.

10

ziq OP wrote

Nah I'm offended. It's lifting from my essay word for word and profiting from it, they should link to it.

7

Styx wrote (edited )

They should and it's perfectly understandable you'd be annoyed by it. Still, I think we should be moving towards the actual death of the author -- like a proper, gory slaughter followed up by depositing him/her/they under a thick layer of salt and an even thicker layer of soil on the top just to be thorough this time.

8

fortifiedmischief wrote

stunning imagery. I think my main qualm with anonymity is that it prevents a good back and forth discussion after something is published. The author is almost just protected from having to interact with the effect of their work. I've often wanted clarification or wanted to share criticism but when people use aliases or go full ANON then the conversation is pretty much impossible to have.

6

ziq OP wrote

with me it's just about finding more essays by an author i enjoy. without a name, their essays get lost in the void. the person who wrote desert could have 100 other essays that no one has read because the right people didn't happen to read them and recommend them to others and have those essays build up a rep. there are probably thousands of essays on the library credited to anonymous and i'm not going to read any of them unless other people are talking about them

5

Styx wrote

Alright, with you lot it's clear we need to add a few more layers on the top and maybe finish it with a permaculture orchard or something like that.

I'm not talking about people using aliases or going full anon, but an empty space where the author's name would be, a bunch of tumbleweed rolling through a void. You don't need the author to clarify anything to you -- maybe it's unclear because they don't know what the fuck they are trying to say; maybe you don't fully get it because you occupy a different dimension and words have slightly different meanings to you, so you wouldn't understand it even with a clarification. In any case, you can always have this discussion with other people who read that article, or have something smart to say about the topic. The existence of the author turns reading into a form of consumption: 'Here, have some of this, try to process it and see what sticks with you. And if you like it and have some spare money, consider giving me some because I got a rent to pay.' But kill that fucker and reading becomes a creative act (Stay tuned to witness Styx turning into a Bakuninista in real time...)

It's by no means a priority, but we need to liberate words and ideas and poetry and everything else from the tyranny of the authorship. There is no benefit to it, other than the opportunities for commodification, and it takes so much away from us.

3

Styx wrote

For a different perspective: Just imagine how liberating it would be if you could just write whatever you want and however you want, without taking anything and anyone into consideration, and then just release it to the world without fear of how it's received or what kind of questions someone might have. We'd get very different texts then.

4

ziq OP wrote

but then why release it to the world? if you're writing for yourself? JD Salinger didn't let anyone read his novels after the reactions to catcher irked him

Salinger continued to write in a disciplined fashion, a few hours every morning. According to Maynard, by 1972 he had completed two new novels.[104][105] In a 1974 interview with The New York Times, he said, "There is a marvelous peace in not publishing ... I like to write. I love to write. But I write just for myself and my own pleasure."[106] According to Maynard, he saw publication as "a damned interruption".[107] In her memoir, Margaret Salinger describes the detailed filing system her father had for his unpublished manuscripts: "A red mark meant, if I die before I finish my work, publish this 'as is,' blue meant publish but edit first, and so on."[108] A neighbor said that Salinger told him that he had written 15 unpublished novels.[109]

5

Styx wrote

But you are not writing it for yourself! You are writing it because there is something in you that wants to get out in the form of text. So you just release it and move on with your life.

5

ziq OP wrote

personally i write to taunt people, so i guess i could write anonymously and still do that. but the vitriol i evoke wouldn't be nearly as concentrated or enjoyable

4

Styx wrote

You do you! To be clear, I'm not saying that we should all start anonymising our texts. This is not about whether there is some name attached to a text or not, but about how corrosive the very idea of authorship is to every aspect of writing.

Just think about how this need (or want, or whatever) to ruffle feathers affects what you say and how different your writing would be without it.

3

ziq OP wrote (edited )

just the idea that pissy little shits obsessively hate-read everything i say is enough to complete me

4

fortifiedmischief wrote

seems a bit sad... How about this alternative :: write whatever you want, however you want, with a keen appreciation for whoever might be on the other side of your text and then UNLEASH all your pure and unadulterated thoughts without apology and brace yourself for the most beautiful collision!! I love to see how my work is received and i LOVE the kinds of questions people have... why would I fear these things?

3

LittleHelp wrote

A discussion can benefit from being able to associate the words of a person with their experiences and actions. A discussion may also benefit from making known who contributed to that discussion, for example in order to follow up on it or find more context.

I agree with your point that originality, intellectual rights, copyrights etc. are harmful concepts, but there's nuance between seeing value in associating individual authors with their words and codifying said authorship into laws to ensure industry profit

3

Styx wrote

A discussion can benefit from being able to associate the words of a person with their experiences and actions. A discussion may also benefit from making known who contributed to that discussion, for example in order to follow up on it or find more context.

And this is precisely why it needs to go. It's a spook to think that just because I said something smart once that I'll continue delivering. My past contributions should bear no weight on what I'm doing now because for all you know, I'm might have gone full fash and I'm just being really sly about it. Look at the entire Chomskyist cabal -- just because Chomsky had a few enlightened views on US imperialism, this now means he is the single most important anarchist writer and even more revolutionary linguist, even though nobody really knows what that 'universal grammar' thing really came down to and even fewer people know that no linguist is taking that shit seriously.

We have to start judging ideas on their own merit, not on the merit of who wrote them and what they wrote before and how they fit within this person's entire oeuvre. This entire industry has to be burned at the stake.

3

zoom_zip wrote

i agree with everything you said about murdering authors

5

subrosa wrote

zoom zip and you won't wake up

zooooom zip

6

Styx wrote

And then down the river Styx where they all belong...

5