Exclaim! rant makes print version

[kung]

I was not expecting them to print that at all, glad they did though. Somebody over there has obviously edited it down essentially making my shred of them more pointed which I think is cool as shit. Unfortunately they printed AD's mistake on the whole thing and undercut my argument while reinforcing the stereotype of hippies endlessly bickering on the net (where'd that come from). I think AD mistook my admittedly argumentative online persona, penchant for intangibles and presumed falsely that was what irked me here. It was the editing that bugged me that's all- the fact that it can slide for our scene but not others.

So for Mrs. Palmerston, AD and anyone else this is what I'm getting at. It's basically a decronstructionist reading of Exclaim!, it's looking for traces of agency and intention in the actual marks on the page. It's not Sean Palmerston's comment so much as that it wasn't edited out. It's like a freudian slip, in Freud's mind it's precisely these unguarded moments that we let something slip like saying jamhug instead of jamhub- it's evidence of a deeper reality- a seething subcontent- in this case the Id.

Derrida uses the greek word for drug Pharmakon to explain the idea of writing as poisin and cure- the underpinning of deconstruction. Now Pharmakon means a number of things: drug, philtre, wizard, love charm, scapegoat and 'one who is sacrificed in expiation for the sins of the city'. What Derrida is saying is that anytime an editor translates that or any word they choose one word that captures the sound and sense- thereby eliminating a number of contradictory possible readings. Plato is perfectly aware of the greek language but never uses the word pharmakon which is majorly suspect to Derrida. So he's basically saying that even when a word (or idea) isn't used, can't be found on the marks on the page, it can sometimes be detected through certain 'tangible points of presence' below the surface as it were. To Derrida it is evidence that there is a 'semantic slippage' always already underway when we use words.

So I was basically using this literary criticism technique to deconstruct Exclaim- to find evidence on the marks of the page of an idea just below the surface evidenced by a bulge.

[zimmerman pt3]

Luke,

what's up with Northern Heads these dayz?

Any plans going back to Hali?

t-baum

[AD]

Hey wow, my second ever letter to Exclaim! was printed, as was the first.

My first letter was 4 or 5 years ago, telling Exclaim! to cover more CanJams. It resulted in a cover story on the New Deal and album reviews of BNB and someone else (can't remember who). That was back before all this 'net bickering' had started, because the only website up to promote Canadian Jam-things was the Canadian Phish Tape-Traders page. Oh yeah; that was my page.

I continue to have no problem with Exclaim! writing about or reviewing anything they choose to. I may not like some of the things they write, but, if I do choose to critiscise said writing, I don't stoop so low as to take personal shots against the author.

Net bickering is stupid.

ad