Dave, if you read what I said, it was simply my (brief and by no
means definitive) analysis of why that poem does not work for me.  If
it is an anti-war poem, then - for me - it doesn't work because the
bodily disgust is primary over the disgust against violence.  And it
seemed to me, as I said, that the central metaphor was somewhat
unexamined, which would hardly be surprising, since as you say, you
posted a poem you wrote in a hurry and very recently.

I didn't at any point talk about "forbidding" or banning anything;
rather, I said explicitly you had every right to write what you
liked.  Nor did I discuss any intentionality.   My reminder about
sexism was general, and in response to Jill's and Rebecca's posts.

Best

A


>Crumbs, Alison
>
>I hardly know where to begin on this. Well, I have no problem with the
>notion that the poem doesn't work, please remember that it is only something
>I drafted a few hours ago, I've only just re-read it myself, it's definitely
>not formally integrated for instance, but I'm at a loss at some comments.
>The metaphor of shitting is meant to predominate, you know the
>colloquialisms on the lines of 'crap falling on your head', that's the whole
>idea of the piece whether or not it works, that this war is like people
>being shitted on all round. The link of bodily pollution and what is not
>good is ancient in literature, consider the link between money and what is
>thought dirty in Great Expectations for instance. The disgust at the body is
>about some bodies going wrong, like Generals, however I don't see why
>disgust for the body is in itself a forbidable matter, else all almost of
>Swift should be banned. I do hope your remarks about sexism weren't
>including me, as you well know, I am very scrupulous on this matter and will
>interrogate myself for months about any possible occurrences, the false
>analogy to birth at the start of my piece was meant to suggest a distortion
>of what should be. I'm not making any claims for it but my intentions were
>good.
>
>In Good Faith and Friendship
>
>
>Best
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>David Bircumshaw
>
>Leicester, England
>
>Home Page
>
>A Chide's Alphabet
>
>Painting Without Numbers
>
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Alison Croggon" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:25 AM
>Subject: Re: The Joys of Shit
>
>
>At 12:36 AM +0100 4/4/03, david.bircumshaw wrote:
>>the linking of waste and birth comes
>>from the view of the war.
>
>Well, it's fair to say it doesn't work for me, and irony doesn't make
>it work either.  The disgust focuses on the body rather than on
>violence; the bombers are subservient to the image of shitting,
>rather than the other way around.  Sure, sexual violence and war are
>very intimately linked - no war has ever taken place without sexual
>violence, from the enslaving of women by the Greeks to the fall of
>Berlin to Mai Lai, and I know the training of American GIs involves a
>huge dose of conditioning in the rhetoric of sexual violence - but
>birth is by no means an act of violence.  I think if you want an
>irony to work in it, you'll have to think it through a little more.
>
>I found Dom's poem less uncomfortable on that front: I read it not so
>much as homophobic as expressing the suppressed homoeroticism of
>violent conflict.  There was a similar passage in one of Genet's
>novels - Funeral Rites?
>
>Thanks Rebecca and Jill for your notes on the tone overnight; I might
>remind everyone here of the list rule against sexism.
>
>Best
>
>A
>
>
>A
>--
>
>
>Alison Croggon
>Editor
>Masthead Online
>http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
>
>Home page
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/

--


Alison Croggon
Editor
Masthead Online
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/

Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/