[Jandek] Correspondence threads

[Danen D. Jobe]

This is an interesting view of a topic I've intentionally shied away from, though I wish to clarify it a bit from how I see things. Though the letters are indeed to "Corwood," they are also of a personal and un-official nature. When they are of a more official nature, Corwood always makes that clear. So what you have then are letters. You then have to ask yourself to what extent you feel comfortable sharing the content of a personal correspondence with ANYBODY. I believe that Corwood answers letters to specific PEOPLE, not to the public in general. Unless it regards Corwood artistic property, a letter is not actually a copyrighted statement, and in fact can said to be "owned" by its recipient. So it's on the recipient's shoulders. I think a simple sense of respect is in order, though I can't imagine he would be appalled at some of the statements that have appeared here (especially those of a humorous but un-personal nature, or those that relate to specific technical issues r
egarding concerts and recordings). It might, though, be a breach of trust to include personal information meant simply for the recipient. And yet, he's aware of it to some extent, if only through the DVD. I think the key is approaching such things keeping in mind that the "Corwood Rep" is very much a person. In other words, imagine if the tables were turned: would you want a personal letter blasted to the world in a public list? Just a thought.

Danen


> Dear Jandek-list readers,
> 
> A topic of recent and recurring interest are the correspondences 
> which are
> believed to exist between a "Corwood representative" and various other
> entities.  I wish to add a few general remarks.
> 
> I must preface this with a disclaimer that I have no knowledge 
> whatsoever of
> Corwood Industries' preferences regarding the treatment of 
> correspondences.Absent that knowledge, I tend to make some 
> assumptions that I presume other
> readers here and corresponders there share.  My remarks, however, 
> are not
> based on assumptions.
> 
> When any entity sends you correspondence, you should keep in mind 
> that the
> authoring entity retains copyright to the material in the 
> correspondence.Although the physical object is in your possession, 
> that does not give you
> the right to publish it, either in a book, as one person suggested, 
> or on
> the internet, as some have already done.  You should have that 
> entity'spermission before publishing it anywhere.  If they choose 
> to grant blanket
> permission to publish correspondence, that is their business, however,
> absent any information, it is not safe to assume your corresponder 
> feels the
> correspondences are public information.  Again, this applies to any 
> personalor institutional correspondence, and has nothing in 
> particular to do with
> the Corwood aesthetic or their preferences.
> 
> Thank you for your time.
> Arthur C.
>