Is There Another Text for Us to Hack?

Mark Sample says, in his article "Notes towards a Deformed Humanities," The deformed work is the end, not the means to the end" (Sample).

I'm not sure about that. After going through the readings for this week, my understanding of the value of creative-criticism is that it helps us understand a pre-existing text by deconstructing and changing (intervening) with the original text. I decided to create my own N+7 poem to test out my understanding.

Using W.B. Yeats' "No Second Troy," I used the N+7 generator to produce an intervened version of the poem:

Original:

"Why should I blame her that she filled my days

With misery, or that she would of late

Have taught to ignorant men most violent ways,

Or hurled the little streets upon the great.

Had they but courage equal to desire? 

What could have made her peaceful with a mind

That nobleness made simple as a fire,

With beauty like a tightened bow, kind

That is not natural in an age like this,

Being high and solitary and most stern?

Why, what could she have done, being what she is?

Was there another Troy for her to burn?"

N+7 Text:

"Why should I blemish her that she filled my dealings,

With mission, or that she would of late

Have taught to ignorant mangles most violent weavers,

Or hurled the little striped upon the great.

Had they but cove equal to detective?

What could have made her peaceful with a minister

That nobleness made simple as a fireside,

With bedstead like a tightened bra, a kitbag

That is not natural in an aide like this,

Bench high and solitary and most stickpin?

Why, what could she have done, bench what she is?

Was there another Troy for her to business?"

I've studied Yeats' poetry before, and this poem specifically in its relationship to Maud Gonne.  The "she" and "her" that Yeats' refers to is Maud Gonne, as he feels spurned by her and thinks that her presence is destructive to his life. By knowing this, my interpretation of the N+7 text is influenced. When "misery" changes to "mission," Maud Gonne is now giving Yeats purpose. A tightened "bedstead" instead of "beauty" implies a denied sexual or romantic venture. "Burn" becomes "business," and the implication of total destruction is removed from the poem.

It is through this exercise that I have to come to understand that it is possible for intervened works to become works within their own right; however, this is only when the textual hacking is for a creative purpose and not a creative-critical purpose. In order to use hacked texts effectively in the creative-critical sphere, it seems necessary to me to re-integrate the original meaning of the text and/or the text itself.

Even in William S. Burroughs explanation of the Cut-Up method, there is greater understanding of the impact of the method at the end of the piece because the reader has interacted with the original text before it was cut up.

I could be totally wrong, but to me it seems necessary to return to the original text in order to find meaning in the creative-critical sense.