In a message dated 8/2/00 1:16:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> 1.   The house is heavily altered from when Poe lived there (top two floors
>  of facade intact (lower two floors pushed out with 1920's storefront).
>  2.  Poe did not build or materially alter the house.
>  3.  His occupancy was extremely brief.

I remember one time a farm house along a roadway being pointed at and my
being told Robert Frost had lived there. It did not mean very much to me as I
had no idea, at the time, who Robert Frost was, or why a farm house looking
to me like any other farmhouse was important.

Poets often reference their environment, and architecture, space, in their
work. They do this in both positive & negative ways. A negative way, as in
negative space, is the total abscence of reference to any form of
architectural space in their work. Discerning the presence of nothing in a
literary opus can lead to tenure and a lifelong career. Why not the
preservation or demolition of a building?

I don't feel strongly that Poe was connected to any particular "realistic"
structure in his consciousness as a writer, which, since I am invoking my
feelings, is a subjective perspective on the question. When I think of Poe &
the reality of space I think of a glass bottle, laying prostrate in a wet and
damp gutter, or resting in a lonely grave -- connecting him to a building,
for me, does not much to add to the story. I'm biased as I'm not all that
certain, as a wirter, if I care if Poe's writings are preserved, let alone
where he may have slept. As NJ Julip says, if the building is all NY has...
well, if Poe's writings is all American literary culture has... then best
hold on for dear life. Too many much greater and more interesting American
writers don't even have their work preserved, let alone their temporary
commode.

If the structure is considered important respective of the cultural meaning
of Poe as writer, then possibly it has merit to save. The structure may have
historical value if Poe wrote something important to his body of work while
at the building -- but I think not quite as much as if he wrote an angry and
obfuscated note to a tavern keeper. If it is simply to save a building
because a group of people like deconstructing Poe's lesser texts, and there
is no arguably redeeming and unique architectural value, then, without having
seen the building, I would assume preserving it is to build up more cultural
kitsch, heritage clutter... or a local community political maneuver.

I suspect that if Poe were presented with the question as to if he felt the
building he stopped in deserved to be retained, based on his act of having
slept there long enough to remember it if he was asked, that he would have
not given a damn one way or the other. So, what I feel, in the end, is that
someone should argue the preservation from a reenactment of Poe's current
consciousness. I suspect the building will be relatively invisible from that
vantage point.

I see more sense in preserving the Brooklyn Bridge for the argument that
poets like to jump off it and that we need to preserve this cultural
infrastructure for the inspiration of future usage. You never know when angst
will prevail.

I think it also worthwhile to advise Stanley Kunitz to start burning down his
former residences.

][<en