.
As I sd to my
friend, because I am
always talking -- John, I
sd, which was not his
name, the darkness sur-
rounds us, what
can we do against
it, or else, shall we &
why not, buy a goddamn big car,
drive, he sd, for
christ’s sake, look
out where yr going.
I Know a Man: Robert Creeley, from For Love, 1962
Rain, gas station, dawn: photo by Riza Nugraha, 2007
Gas (22.12.08): image by Tom Raworth, 2008
18 comments:
Brian,
My copy of Uncollected Writings was made and presented to me by Ted Berrigan as a "C" Press endeavour. How many copies Ted may have thus produced I would of course have no idea, but I would be surprised if there were ever more than a few.
I'm about to get into the car for a longish drive. What a neat beginning to the trip.
BTW Brian, if you check out my Ted memoir, Late Returns, you will find on page 83 a letter from Ted dated 18 Dec. 81 in which he writes:
"Thanks to a small job of two weeks I was able to xerox and bind you your own spanking new Kerouac set, in red, to commemorate the Hollywood ten."
Curtis,
Beware those inflated pink elephant pumps.
Safe voyaging!
Brian,
Given the circumstances and the context, I think it would probably be safe to assume there may be some grounds for the latter suggestions.
Good luck with this book deal of yours, though I must say, having assiduously steered clear of business on this blog, where ne'er a penny has been made nor lost up to this point, I am made just a bit uneasy by this entire exchange.
(Like all other blogging fools, I always hope, no doubt quite unreasonably, that someone will be interested enough to have something to say; and that that something will be at least peripherally related to the post at hand, rather than strictly directed to anybody's private commercial enterprises; particularly when those enterprises are conducted over the dead bodies of authors whom I have known personally.)
Mr. Clark -
My thanks again. And my apologies for any insensitivity on my part. My concern, however, has much less to do with any personal commercial enterprise and much more to do with historical, bibliographic and literary accuracy - esp. for an item that would likely end up in an institution where the story it tells might be studied for decades to come. In such a situation, getting that story right is - to me at least - important. That this would not be the preferred or proper forum I can appreciate however, and again I offer my apologies. I, personally, would have preferred email and provided same. As this exchange has made you uneasy - something not my intention and for which I am also sorry - I have taken the liberty of removing my comments. I will do the same for this after a day or two. I do thank you again for your time and expertise.
Brian Cassidy,
I fear your removal of comments regarding your questions about an item which you evidently have up for sale will have compounded the problem created by the original disparity of intentions between your enterprise and mine.
Nothing is or ever will be for sale here.
I appreciate your dedication to the accuracy of institutional cataloguing of historical materials. Indeed I have wasted a good deal of my own time, over the years, in that area of ultimately futile endeavour. But I take you for an intelligent and alert fellow, so I would be very surprised if any of your time is actually being wasted.
(To be honest, I think I would have something to learn from you in that regard.)
At any rate I wish you well, and I do hope you will cease to further attempt to erase all traces of our exchange, as the erasure will now raise more questions than were raised by your original queries, thus further distracting those (no doubt VERY few) people who may have come to this post out of some (perhaps deluded) interest in the post itself.
Just to clarify a couple of points:
1) I can see in retrospect that my removal of my comments is certainly in conflict with any appeal to historical accuracy. Indeed, the hypocrisy of the gesture is so obvious I'm not sure how I missed it originally and appreciate you calling me on it. The deletion was intended as a gesture of deference and respect to someone whose work I admire enormously; you seemed upset or annoyed at the communication, I wanted to try and make that right(er). But as you point out, it only seems to further muddy the waters.
I will happily repost my original comments, but as "Nothing is or ever will be for sale here" I hesitate to repost for fear of leaving a further impression that I am somehow trying to engage in some form of guerrilla advertising. I am not. Indeed...
2) The item is question is not even currently for sale. I am researching the book for a client who may or may not choose to sell it. And who even may or may not choose to sell it through me. So any financial interest I have at the moment is speculative at best. And even were that not the case, the answers to any questions I sought would not really change the value/price of the book, its provenance being the primary factor in that regard. All of which is to say again: my interest was (and is) in getting the details right - coupled with an appreciation for Berrigan, the so-called Mimeo Revolution, the Beats, etc. Or to put yet another way: I'd want to know anyway because I'm interested in this stuff. My personal and professional interests happen here to overlap.
That interest and curiosity have perhaps gotten the better of me. I'm sorry to have in essence barged into your blog "home." You have been very very gracious to what amounts to an unwanted guest.
I will defer to your judgement as to whether the original comments should be reposted. I have retained copies that were emailed to me and will republish unedited if you wish. Indeed, if you have copies yourself, feel free to repost.
The issue of comment reposting aside, I will darken your door no more.
-bc
Brian,
Thanks for explaining and I must apologize for being brisk.
At any rate I do owe you an explanation as well. The reason why a private e-mail address is not given on the blog is simply that I do not have one. (My wife kindly shares hers with me for special occasions only, a privilege which I try not to abuse overmuch.)
But now that we are talking, I am glad that we are talking. And I do now understand the depth of your interest and the altogether altruistic motive which has caused you to enquire. And I am grateful for that.
And now that we are talking, I am as happy to be talking about what we are talking about as I would have been had we been talking about the post to which these comments are attached.
Perhaps even more so, in fact.
And indeed as it seems the only person who wanted to talk about this post was at the point he spoke of it even then jumping in his car for a long voyage, you and I are alone here, with our common concern for history, bloody fools that we are & c.
(Have you heard the one about the two Irishmen...?)
And finally, yes, I'd love it for the sake of that historical record if you reposted your comments.
BTW the entirety of this blog as well of course as these particular comments are contained exclusively (i.e. I don't do "back-up") in that amorphous intangible thing known as "The Cloud," which, if one is to believe the word that's going around, could well evaporate at any instant... in which case the only custodians of all these things will be persons like yourself, who tend The Book.
Though of course none of this is or ever will be in one.
And perhaps that is/will be as it should be.
...so then, World, said the tree falling in the forest, here, with Brian's permission, are Brian's original comments, for the benefit of those of you who may happen to venture with your stethoscopes into the forest, in these final days before the Cloud evaporates with the forest in it:
Brian Cassidy said...
Mr. Clark - I am a book dealer and have a questions regarding you attribution (notes, page 236) of the Kerouac piracy "Uncollected Writings" in your JK bio to "C" Press. Currently handling a copy (edited by Marshall Clements and David Stivender, indeed Allen Ginsberg's copy), but find no mention of "C." Wondering if your attribution originated with a reference you could point me to or (as I suspect) from your own knowledge/experience. If you wouldn't mind answering a couple quick questions, I would be very appreciative. Apologies trying to reach you via your comments. -Brian Cassidy (books@briancassidy.net)
3 March 2010 06:37
___
Brian Cassidy said...
Mr. Clark - Many thanks. Esp. for pointing me to your memoir which I had scanned for references but prob, never would have found without rereading (not that that would be a bad thing - rereading that is). Just one more question: We are talking about the same book, yes? Ted published the Uncollected assembled by Clements and Stivender? Some suggestions in some sources I've seen that there might have been two or three similar, but different, productions. Again, many thanks. -bc
3 March 2010 15:39
Appreciate your understanding and kind comments.
And for the historical record: the above are indeed my original posts.
Again, thank you for your time and wishing you all the best as each of us returns to our respective tendings...
-bc
Appreciate your understanding and kind comments.
And for the historical record: the above are indeed my original posts.
Again, thank you for your time and wishing you all the best as each of us returns to our respective tendings...
-bc
Love it.
for the poets who knew him
indeed the darkness surrounds us and
driving through it with the radio on passes time
but not as intense
or rodeo like
as poetry
creeley dead on the high
plains of west texas
he rode a long way
"I know a man"
who rode a long way too
to die in an open space
seems he had your face
and sounded like you
Beware those red-eyed cows.
a poem a day
is a way
a puritan
out west
laid to rest
with Longfellow
back east,the
American heart's feast
some will follow
Post a Comment