The article is a palimpsest created as part of the project of collective autoethnographic writing. Its multiple forms formed the basis for the community and the intensification of friendly writing. After the assemblies, there were remnants. The remnants of practices from which one could crack meanings―but these are not the most important ones. This peculiar collection of artifacts is presented with a frail hope that the remnants still contain a messianic promise which will spread like plague. Maybe the text will revive in your hands—by reading it, you will write another version with our ghosts. We are ghosts. In words. We haunt.

We are a group of evocative autoethnographers who have been cooperating on various autoethnographic projects for several years. In the article, we deal with the problem related to the realization of a project concerning collective autoethnographic writing. The idea seemed quite simple: By referring to the previous events related to the writing of collective autoethnography and the event of current writing, we wanted to grasp what it is and what it does to us. It turned out to be much more difficult than we had thought. Our attempt to tell a story about the experience of experiencing collective autoethnographic writing was questioned during the process of writing. We started asking ourselves why our project had been falling apart. Did we experience something unspoken? This article is an insight into the unspoken matter. We are posing a question about reconsidering the inquiry of collective writing in the spirit of evocative autoethnography.

No abstract

This article is reaction of article Adams (2017) and call of establishing criteria. Author wants to say, that is not good call. Such call can bring poison fruits. Author say that we don’t need any criteria to do autoethongraphy, we just need safe space to meet and speak together.

This is an autoethnographic poem. It shows one of the limits of autoethnography.