Hey, wait a minute! This is known as censorship in my country, no
matter who's president, and I don't see any need for apologies by
Gabe or Kent for "On the Rectum of Peacocks," which--if not my own
personal fave among Gabe's body-parts & -functions series--is a
poem. That's reason enough to post it on a poetry list, isn't it?
It's hard to imagine "offensive poetry" as any kind of legitimate
category, much less one that we could all agree on. Do all the
Brit-po listowners share Elizabeth's view on prohibiting posts with
one or another kind of poetry that someone or other finds "offensive"?
And if so, could you please give us some specific guidelines on that?
Thanks,
Candice
>My name a synonym for "provocation"? I am bemused. But I apologize again,
>and promise to never again send to British-poets any poem about assholes
>without first offering, as padding, the buttocks of context.
>
>Kent
>
>
>>Well now to be fair, "On the rectum of peacocks" has just been published
>>by the East Village and has not circulated otherwise. I've no doubt
>>that's Kent's intention was provocative, "Kent" being a synonym for
>>"provocative," at least in these parts: "Ye kent do that ye little
>>gurrier ..." Anyways.
>>Mairead
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Elizabeth James wrote:
>>
>> > Kent, thanks for the response. I *didn't find it funny, and that's
>> > personal; however that's exactly why I was rattled by your possible
>> > motive for posting it -- a piece in the 'offensive' tradition, by
>> > someone other than yourself, that had been round another list anyway,
>> > and was not (as I thought) of particularly general interest. The
>> > contextualisation would have been useful in the first place. We're not
>> > all the same here...
>> > Humour, that's a subject. Not to mention intentionality. If someone '
>> > intends' to be 'good-humoured', is that good enough? (I know nothing of
>> > the buffalo thing, btw)
>> > Anyway, cheers. God help the President.
>> > e
>> >
>> > --
>> > Elizabeth James
>> >
|