It is with sadness and regret that I observe that the Electronic Literature Organization, of which I have been a director since its foundation, has ceased to make any positive contribution to the field and has, instead, become an active impediment and a continuing embarrassment.
No qualities are more essential to scholarship and research than accuracy and truthfulness. The ELO has repeatedly failed to adhere to these demands, upon which research ultimately depends. Most recently, the central document upon which ELO's primary surviving initiative rests, the Provisional List of Endangered Works, presents a distorted, partisan, and false view. Some of the "endangered" works are in print from major electronic publishers. Others can readily be found on the Web. Some never were written, and others were bagatelles and sketches, privately circulated amongst friends. Another PAD report, published on the Web and later silently withdrawn, discussed details of Eastgate business practices with which its authors could not ethically have been acquainted and which, in any event, were inaccurately described.
To undertake a mission of preservation and archiving on such grounds invites ridicule. Facts are not checked, and errors remain uncorrected; this amounts to deliberate and knowing publication of a falsehood.
Broadly viewed, ELO's role has become primarily destructive and backwards-looking. Instead of promoting wider and deeper understanding of the best of electronic literature, ELO officers pretend that our greatest accomplishments are endangered antiquities. Instead of appreciating the wealth of tools available to today's electronic writers, ELO officials persistently denigrate those tools not marketed by Microsoft and Macromedia.
Captive to the interests of a faction, the ELO has failed to create, or to foster the creation of, significant tools or significant hypertexts. Its publications are so slight, insubstantial, and inaccurate as to call the entire field into disrepute. Over the short term of its existence, ELO has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and expended the efforts of numerous and highly talented volunteers; it is time to take steps to ensure that such resources be applied to the benefit of the field at large rather than to enhance the resumes of ELO officers and donors.
After much reflection and discussion with many of the most active artists and researchers in our discipline, I conclude that ELO obstructs progress in the field it was formed to serve. It dismays those whom it should encourage, disparages or ignores work that it should honor, and invites the derision of those who prize accuracy and rigor.
It is time for the field to reclaim the integrity of its literature, to enjoy the many pleasures of the fine works that so many have labored to create and to interpret, and to continue the ongoing work of creating innovative tools that build upon and extend the accomplishments we have collectively achieved over the course of two decades.
I therefore regretfully tender my resignation from the Board of Directors of the Electronic Literature Organization, with effect from the close of business on Tuesday, May 20, 2003.
Mark Bernstein