poetic bite
Perhaps you folks who have a penchance for Derrida and Nietzsche (God knows
why) can explain how does one in poetry signal commitment to causes (such as
environmental issues, political and gender, race --et al) by making the
poems inaccessible through 1) syntactical changes 2) breakdown of grammar
3) use of neologisms 4) paradigms that are only understood by initiates,
and so on. Does this poetics of commitment entail alienating the reader?
Keston wrote of "a very smart young
African American woman had been reading Andrew Duncan" --a very unfortunate
description, but useful in that it implies that readers who are "smart" can
understand and appreciate "Duncan". The "ivory towerism" of this approach
to poetry is not so prevalent in the US which seeks even in its more erudite
and cold poetry --a dialogue. In addition, I find it reprehensible that many
on this list use poetics to tuck political ideas under --like under the
skirt of the muse --and then when questioned about this or that point, they
conveniently say it is poetics not politics. I rather get my news firsthand
whenever possible from people who are involved --not to have it as a "poetic
bite" with lashings of Nietzsche and Foucault.
on risk
I read earlier about "risk". Last night I saw two salarimen jumping up and
down on a platform in step to a virtual dance on the screen. Everything is
moving to this "virtual" almost autistic world in which people are far
removed from the thing itself. From what I understand, "risk" here involves
a remoteness, a distance, and in the "poetics of risk"
it is the same, a virtual risk. The move in academia from action to language
is a prime example of the desire to become less involved --to rescind upon
that traditional contract between the poet and reader --and ironically--
given the fact most of the theories had a predilection for smashing the evil
empire of the pronominal subject that had been predicated upon patriarchal
dictatorship, St. Augustine(?) lol, --the net effect has been to produce
egotistic works--ones that signal "I was here" --the calling card of the
clever critic/poet. There was mention of Olsen and his cult --and
initiates --here we have in Cam-Po and Lang-Po the two sisters of the
language based poetry, something akin to cultism, one that looks up its own
ass or spends an inordinantly long time at toe nail clippings, and then
pronounces this to be a poetics of "risk". Tell me what do they write of on
frontlines? What do those who are so often mentioned in the postings, those
suffering in x or y? What do they listen to? What do they read? Are they
"smart" enough to understand the nature of the "poetics of risk"? I do not
believe in Santa Claus anymore, but I believe there is a readership. A
friend of mine at the tender of nine years of age witnessed his grandmother
being raped --he took hold of a rifle and shot dead the soldier. This kind
of tragedy is repeated on every continent in numerous countries. I remember
he always liked a song to have strong lyrics and a sense of rhythm --and the
same of poetry. I do not want to take risks if it means I can no longer
communicate with people like my friend. If this sounds like
popularism --then so be it. By the way Derrida like many of the other
critics has mellowed into autobiographical ramblings --a sign of despair
with the deconstruction theories ....and a restoration of the empty
signifier "I".
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|