Date:         Fri, 15 Aug 97 21:31:56 EDT
From: "Charles J. Stivale" <CSTIVAL-AT-CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Working the Interstitial Spaces


On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:57:43 -0700 E. Lighthart said:
>Dear Mr. Stivale, you seem to be well versed in regulations that deal
>with printed material.
Ah, well, there's an impression I wouldn't want getting around! No, I've
just had to sign a few book contracts, and the ones in the USA have these
tiny print clauses that I take the time to read. The one that says "Author
must obtain all permissions before submitting completed manuscript" has
kept me busy with both the Maupassant book (while is works in French fall
in the public domain, what about the translations that I cited extensively?
Answer: undecidable, since the actual translators in the volumes I used
are never given.) and the D&G ms.
 When I began to post Deleuze's "Postscript on the
>Societies of Control" at my website (Nomadthought/Geocities/HotSprings
>Spa/2201), I noticed that the length of time to post from within the
>file
>manager was gradually being cut short, until it was impossible to finish
>just one sentence. The remainder of the essay is located at
>"endocosmogenic" on the same neighborhood page(2242 I believe). Such
>methods of control of expression are in place everywhere,
I have to take your word on this being a method of control, since I don't
follow exactly how the file manager (is this a person or a program set in
place for some reason?) prevented you from posting. You seem to have managed
to get the essay online, with some difficulty I gather, but is the end
product satisfactory and accessible?
 yet since you
>have brought the subject up, would you care to reply to a question that
>has presented itself? By whom or by what means can the flow of profits
>realized from works that entirely bypass academia, French and American
>copyright laws, even god's laws be regulated if sent directly to Mme.
>Deleuze? Bold as hell, without asking permission?  We can all choose to
> constantly remind ourselves of what may always escape the codes, what
>always seeks the tao of the interstice. "Harry hates those that seem to
>know. They would blind us to the fact that there is really nothing to
>know, each of us containing our own perfect blackness." (John Updike,
>Rabbit is Rich). That translations are regulated by the few,
>the documented, the authorized, helps to engender flows of minor
>literature, art, music and such.
I'm not sure I get the gist of your question. I don't think that copyrights
are necessarily a great thing. On the other hand, if one is going to publish
in a commercial/capitalist structure, then there are codes dictated by such
practices. I could choose to self publish, or web publish, and some have
gone this route. In the case of this text, it was under contract long before
I was web-conversant, but I'm not sure that everything I write needs to be
on the web either (whether it needs to be in print, well, even that is open
to question). In the case of translations, it would be great, I suppose, if
there weren't the thorny matter of copyrights, and I enjoy happily translat-
ing when I need no permissions, as is the case of the Web Deleuze lectures
and my rather free-form summaries of the ABC Primer. But I'm not sure that I
agree that translations regulated by the few necessarily engender the minor
flows as you suggest. I'd say it's just the opposite. But I may have missed
most the points you were making, and if so, I apologize.
CJ Stivale