i'm not sure why in this day and age a potentially fruitful debate like
this promises to be should be relegated to the establishment's stone
cold archives. should be on the web?
tom bell
Maria Damon wrote:
>
> Subsubpoetics
>
> since ben friedlander is listening in on and participating in this
> conversation, i think he's in the best position to pursue an NPF-related
> venture if he thinks it's fruitful.
>
> At 2:25 PM -0500 7/4/00, kent johnson wrote:
> >Who will contact Hatlen, then? Would he then raise the idea with BW and AB?
> >Let's be as specific as possible about pursuing this. It would be a shame if
> >the opening of this dialogue between two "representative" figures like
> >Baraka and Watten were not pursued into written debate on these embryonic
> >issues (and again, I think the listserv forum is ideal, as it allows others
> >to follow along inn real time, interject questions, ideas, etc.). It seems
> >Baraka feels frustrated about some things and has some strong points to
> >make. If "representation" has been a problem, then wouldn't extending an
> >invitation to Baraka to meet on the mat with Watten _in real-time written
> >exchange_ be a reasonable thing to do? Would Watten be game? I repeat the
> >proposal.
> >
> >Kent
> >
> >>From: Maria Damon <[log in to unmask]>
> >>To: "kent johnson" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
> >>Subject: Re: watten v baraka
> >>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:21:34 -0600
> >>
> >>Subsubpoetics
> >>
> >>i'd be reluctant to ask barrett and amiri to give more of themselves in
> >>this venture, at least as a private citizen --though i think if burton
> >>and/or members of the npf wanted to pursue this with an eye toward
> >>generating a concrete record (text, etc) it might be very valuable. the
> >>npf is in desperate need of what is now called, euphemistically,
> >>"diversification," or in my view politicization, and could only be
> >>strengthened by taking on this kind of debate as relevant to its mission.
> >>further, I disagree with jacques that "poetry" was not part of the
> >>discussion; in fact, it seemed that the most ire was aroused when
> >>theparticipants felt that their particular brand of poetic practice
> >>(Language/ Black Arts Movement) was being mischaracterized by the other. I
> >>found this fascinating.
> >>
> >>At 11:21 AM -0500 7/4/00, kent johnson wrote:
> >> >It would be interesting --and maybe more clarifying-- to have Watten and
> >> >Baraka continue this debate in writing. What chance would there be of
> >> >getting them both to do that here at subsub and/or Poetics? The exchange
> >> >could then be published, of course, for wider audience. Perhaps Maria,
> >>since
> >> >you moderated, you could query them ?
> >> >
> >> >Kent
> >> >
> >> >>From: Maria Damon <[log in to unmask]>
> >> >>To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> >> >>Subject: Re: watten v baraka
> >> >>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:44:36 -0600
> >> >>
> >> >>Subsubpoetics
> >> >>
> >> >>At 8:27 AM -0400 7/4/00, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >> >> >Subsubpoetics
> >> >>
> >> >> >Anyway, the stage for the Watten/Baraka confrontation was set the
> >>evening
> >> >> >before after Watten had given a talk called "The Turn to Language
> >>after
> >> >>the
> >> >> >1960s" focusing on the Berkeley Free speech Movement which Watten
> >>sees
> >> >>as
> >> >> >being the seedbed of Language Poetry. The talk itself was actually
> >>quite
> >> >> >brilliant, & whereas the evening before Perloff had been unable to get
> >> >>the
> >> >> >slide projector working for her own lecture, Watten faultlessly ran
> >> >>films,
> >> >> >photographs, charts, etc, off of his computer. But meanwhile, Baraka,
> >> >>all
> >> >> >this time, had been scribbling away furiously in a large notebook-- I
> >> >>mean,
> >> >> >he was so excited he actually got up & left the hall a couple of times
> >> >>from
> >> >> >the very back of the auditorium where he was sitting. So when Watten
> >> >>was
> >> >> >done, & Perloff opened the floor to questions everybody knew what was
> >> >>coming.
> >> >> > But you could tell, too, that Baraka was absolutely the last person
> >>in
> >> >>the
> >> >> >world whom Perloff wanted to acknowledge (not least because he had
> >> >>publicly
> >> >> >laid a "curse" on her head during his own reading the night
> >> >>before--another
> >> >> >story!!). Basically, Baraka's initial complaint was that Watten & the
> >> >> >Language poets were complicit with the state in profiting
> >>professionally
> >> >>(as
> >> >> >teachers, etc.) from an ostensibly oppositionalist, but, in reality,
> >> >>sterile,
> >> >> >purely text-based, & so enervated, critique of society. There was
> >>some
> >> >> >colorful & heated back & forth, but no time really for a full
> >>exchange.
> >> >>In
> >> >> >the end, Watten challenged Baraka to continue their discussion in a
> >> >>public
> >> >> >forum at the earliest opportunity. Baraka accepted. & Ben arranged
> >>for
> >> >>the
> >> >> >two to meet, w/ Maria's tactful moderation, in front of an audience of
> >> >>about
> >> >> >75 (?) of us the next day at noon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Now here was Baraka's problem as it seemed to me (& which, as I'll
> >> >>explain,
> >> >> >he brilliantly solved, in a way): **Like every other other New
> >>American
> >> >>Poet
> >> >> >that I know about**, Baraka could care less about postmodern critical
> >> >>theory.
> >> >> > But he can't make the same oblique negotiation of it that a lot of
> >>the
> >> >>other
> >> >> >NAPs do because, unlike them, he has, himself, a competing (Marxist)
> >> >>theory
> >> >> >(one that is as sophisiticated as Watten's, but which at the same time
> >> >>lacks,
> >> >> >really, if the truth be told, a persuasive critique of discourses like
> >> >> >Watten's). If Baraka knew more about post structuralism and so on (if
> >>he
> >> >> >thought it was relevant) his critique would be more persuasive--but
> >>like
> >> >>I
> >> >> >said, that's not where his head is at--so, there was a certain
> >>knowledge
> >> >>that
> >> >> >Watten (alone , of the two) possessed & that he could use as a form of
> >> >>power
> >> >> >against Baraka. That Baraka was himself aware of this was evident in
> >>the
> >> >>way
> >> >> >he continually described Watten's position as one of "neutrality" &
> >> >> >priviledge. Watten, he said, claimed to be able to analyze the
> >> >>oppression of
> >> >> >the state and to describe the "impossible" ideology of Marxist
> >>activists,
> >> >>but
> >> >> >was incapable, himself, of defining a course of oppositionalist
> >>"action,"
> >> >> >except in the most rarified way. Baraka seemed to get hung up, in
> >>fact,
> >> >>on
> >> >> >the terms "irrational/impossible revolt" (the terms Watten had used
> >>for
> >> >> >Ginsberg's & the Berkeley Free Speech Movement's opposition to the
> >>Univ
> >> >> >administrators, etc.) & (the state's, according to Watten) "rational
> >> >> >oppression," believing that Watten's own language--even if, by the
> >>term
> >> >> >rational, for instance, Watten wasn't actually saying that it **was**
> >> >> >rational--was already conceding too much. Baraka also objected to
> >> >>Watten's
> >> >> >characterization of Mao's Little Red Book as an empty signifier (the
> >> >>Panthers
> >> >> >were selling it--months before they ever read it--to students for $$
> >>to
> >> >>buy
> >> >> >guns), identifying Watten's position, ultimately, as I've said, as
> >> >> >accomodationist, Trotskyite, etc. He sees Watten, I think, as someone
> >> >>who
> >> >> >relegates Berkeley-style activism to the past, & whose politics are
> >> >>entirely
> >> >> >divorced from the street, the third world, the bedroom and so on.
> >>But
> >> >> >again, Baraka just didn't seem to have the kind of knowledge that
> >>would
> >> >> >prevail over Watten if the terms of the debate were those that Watten
> >> >>himself
> >> >> >has down cold. The debate then was really one of competing rhetorics.
> >> >>At
> >> >> >one point, for instance, Baraka asked Watten why the language poets
> >> >>didn't
> >> >> >use words like "fuck" in their poems. Now of course they do, come on.
> >> >>But
> >> >> >instead of pointing this out, Watten seemed to use this as permission
> >>to
> >> >> >respond to Baraka's barb, a few minutes later, that Watten must have
> >> >>always
> >> >> >had a comfortable income, by saying that, no, that that was
> >>"bullshit,"
> >> >>that
> >> >> >he (Watten) had been "fucking" poor for years. Of course, you had to
> >> >>have
> >> >> >been there, but words like "fuck" and "shit" are not ones that Watten
> >> >>seems
> >> >> >to use easily. & Baraka picked right up on that--it was uncanny--
> >> >>calling
> >> >> >Watten out everytime he (Watten) swore, but retaining, somehow, the
> >>right
> >> >>to
> >> >> >swear himself probably because he (Baraka) always manages to swear
> >> >> >*artfully*. I mean, this was a fascinating development for me--you
> >>could
> >> >>see
> >> >> >that Baraka is a born dramatist by the way he subtlely controlled the
> >> >> >dialogue from that point on--even if, on its face, he was pretty badly
> >> >> >outmatched argumentitively. In fact, he closed the debate by
> >>brilliantly
> >> >> >employing the word "fuck"--I forget exactly how--after having promised
> >> >>about
> >> >> >midway through the discussion to use the word only once in response to
> >> >> >Watten's using it. Anyway, I could go on & on, but I won't. Was it
> >> >> >useful--whatever that means--probably not, though the most
> >>concilliatory
> >> >> >moment seemed to be instigated by Maria's question to Watten--how can
> >>I
> >> >>teach
> >> >> >Language poetry as a form of resistance to anti-imperialism?--which
> >> >>Watten
> >> >> >handled very deftly. &, of course, it was terrific theater--a tape of
> >> >>the
> >> >> >debate actualy exists & will be distributed soon--perhaps--though I
> >>hope
> >> >> >not-- disproving some of my own recollections here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--Jacques
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>just acoupla points jacques: baraka never swore until watten did. then
> >>he
> >> >>said, oh you said four bad words, i'm gonna use four bad words by the
> >>time
> >> >>the debate is over. the final "fuck" was in "motherfucking" something
> >>or
> >> >>other, and it closed the debate amid laughter and applause. barrett did
> >> >>not, i felt, handle my question about teaching the langpos as
> >> >>anti-imperialist deftly, mostly because he was not allowed to develop
> >>his
> >> >>answer because baraka interrupted impatiently. barrett started to
> >> >>recommend bruce andrews's i dont have anymore paper so shut up, or
> >>social
> >> >>romanticism, which he said was a record of various vernaculars heard on
> >>a
> >> >>subway or bus in NYC, and baraka interrupted to say that that hardly
> >> >>constituted an anti-imperialist poem per se (and he's potentially right,
> >>it
> >> >>could be justa populist "local color" thing, but who knows, since
> >>barrett
> >> >>didn't develop his answer). you seem to feel that barrett "won" because
> >>of
> >> >>his superior grasp of poststructuralist theory. i disagree; i thought
> >>that
> >> >>each was able to clarify some good points; barrett especially at the end
> >> >>when he said, in an apparent burst of impatience, that strategies and
> >> >>rhetorics have to change, that as capital and imperialism changes, so
> >>must
> >> >>our tactics and strategies to counter them. i thought baraka also had
> >>many
> >> >>good points; among them that langpo makes great claims about its
> >>political
> >> >>engagements but is v divorced from politics on the ground. and so
> >>forth.
> >> >>i enjoyed it thoroughly not the least because of the goodwill of both
> >> >>speakers and their sense of commitment to debate. also, i wouldn't say
> >>that
> >> >>watten "challenged" baraka to a discussion but that he "invited" further
> >> >>discussion; it was definitely a high point in the conference in terms of
> >> >>energy, politics, engagement with the 60s, etc. and your precis is
> >>clearly
> >> >>a labor of love as it details very fairly the high level of involvement
> >>and
> >> >>intelligence of the two speakers. thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>______________________________________________________________________
> >> >>To unsubscribe, write to [log in to unmask]
> >> >>
> >> >>Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb
> >> >
> >> >________________________________________________________________________
> >> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>______________________________________________________________________
> >>To unsubscribe, write to [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb
> >
> >________________________________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, write to [log in to unmask]
>
> Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb
--
Life designs: http://trbell.tripod.com/lifedesigns/
index of online work at http://members.home.net/trbell
essays: http://members.tripod.com/~trbell/criticism/
=-///>>>``'|\_
SOULSOLESOLO
<<<]]]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
