Random
I Am Not Sorry I Have A Vagina*
The fiction section of the new issue (ETA: the set of stories that indicate they’ve been guest edited by Claire Messud) of Guernica is guest-edited by Claire Messud and she offers a brief essay, Writers, Plain and Simple, to introduce her selections, all written by women. In her essay, Messud writes of how Elizabeth Bishop did not wish to be known as a woman writer and she states:
As an American writer of the early twenty-first century, I agree with her wholeheartedly. An artist’s work is in no way limited or defined by her gender. To allot space, then—such as this fiction section of Guernica—to women writers specifically is, surely, to limit and define them—us!—by an irrelevant fact of birth.
As a woman who writes and wants to be recognized and respected for the quality of my writing and not my gender, who strives not to be limited or defined, I understand the point Messud and many women writers have made over the years.
It is a difficult thing to balance who you are with what you write and it is nearly impossible to expect people to consider what you write apart from who you are.
Historically, women writers have often struggled to garner the same respect and consideration their male counterparts have always received. Some women writers have gone so far as to write using gender-neutral or male pseudonyms hoping such movies would position their writing as what mattered most. The history is complex and fraught and it is important to recognize that.
The thing is, my gender** is not an irrelevant fact of birth, at least not for me. My gender is not the most significant fact of my birth but it would be quite disingenuous for me to assert that being a woman is irrelevant to who I am and my writing nor would I want it to be.
All too often as women writers we are relegated to very untenable positions—our writing is defined by our gender or in spite of our gender; we have to, for all intents and purposes, disassociate ourselves from our womanhood like it is a scarlet W or console ourselves with hyperfemininity and writing in the pink ghetto of “chick lit” or romance novels***. We constantly have to reaffirm we are just as good as the boys, that we can write as hardcore as the boys, that we can keep up the boys, contributing to another untenable position where we are not only constrained by the gender we are but being defined by that which we are not.
There is also a dangerous undercurrent–the notion that the woman part of being a woman writer is something that must be excised, that it is a burden and a bad thing. All too often women writers make elaborate declarations about how they don’t want to be known as a woman writer. I’ve done it myself but the older I get, the more I think, why do we do this? Why do we work so hard (and ultimately limit and define ourselves) while trying to avoid limiting and defining ourselves?
*I recognize I am being deliberately provocative. I make this statement knowing full well there is a difference between sex and gender, etc etc etc.
**We could also talk about race or other facts of birth.
***Both genres which I read, respect and enjoy.
Tags: Claire Messud, Guernica, Women
Provocative questions, all. I can’t speak for others, but only for myself: I don’t want to be known as a woman writer not because I think that’s lame or says something about my writing, but because it doesn’t. After all, 51 percent of the population is female, so “woman writer” says nothing whatsoever about me. To me it’s like saying “over 30 writer,” or “curly-haired writer,” or “short writer.” When so many other people in the world also possess a vagina and boobs, to me the term “woman writer” means nothing, and I hate vagueness in description. I strive for specificity. That may sound disingenous, but really, it’s true. I mean, men don’t get called “male writer.” Because it wouldn’t mean anything, right? Same for women.
Provocative questions, all. I can’t speak for others, but only for myself: I don’t want to be known as a woman writer not because I think that’s lame or says something about my writing, but because it doesn’t. After all, 51 percent of the population is female, so “woman writer” says nothing whatsoever about me. To me it’s like saying “over 30 writer,” or “curly-haired writer,” or “short writer.” When so many other people in the world also possess a vagina and boobs, to me the term “woman writer” means nothing, and I hate vagueness in description. I strive for specificity. That may sound disingenous, but really, it’s true. I mean, men don’t get called “male writer.” Because it wouldn’t mean anything, right? Same for women.
That gender is irrelevent is the New Critical faliciy of autonomy. nothing is autonomous. It’s the same kind of argument that calls affirmative action or the like racist.
Amber – men don’t get called “male writers” just as Pakeha (whites) don’t get called “white/anglo/Palangi/whatever because, as the discursively/politically dominant set, their privledged status is invisible.
This is why L’Ecriture Feminine, Minor Literature (a la Deleuze and Guatarri) etc are important – the weaponisation of the writing act as subversion – the dismantaling of the majoritarian discourses as an assertion of existance while in the process of becoming-other-through writing (I realise that’s vague, but I can’t seem to put it better at the moment).
Like Lydia Lunch proclaiming that one must live ones life as a weapon, and the fact that doing so will radically change what that life is, and the subjectivity that drives it (this is minor iterature – writing in a major language that is ‘not home’ in a way that changes it – kind of radical creolisation. D&G were writing on Kafka. I suggest you look into it, and Kristeva, Cixious etc on L’Ecr. Fem.)
That gender is irrelevent is the New Critical faliciy of autonomy. nothing is autonomous. It’s the same kind of argument that calls affirmative action or the like racist.
Amber – men don’t get called “male writers” just as Pakeha (whites) don’t get called “white/anglo/Palangi/whatever because, as the discursively/politically dominant set, their privledged status is invisible.
This is why L’Ecriture Feminine, Minor Literature (a la Deleuze and Guatarri) etc are important – the weaponisation of the writing act as subversion – the dismantaling of the majoritarian discourses as an assertion of existance while in the process of becoming-other-through writing (I realise that’s vague, but I can’t seem to put it better at the moment).
Like Lydia Lunch proclaiming that one must live ones life as a weapon, and the fact that doing so will radically change what that life is, and the subjectivity that drives it (this is minor iterature – writing in a major language that is ‘not home’ in a way that changes it – kind of radical creolisation. D&G were writing on Kafka. I suggest you look into it, and Kristeva, Cixious etc on L’Ecr. Fem.)
i’m not a woman but i always worry about this
how if women write with a “universal” voice, and write well–they are hailed first for being women… who happen to write…. well…. with a universal voice…
but if they write in a gendered voice, they are hailed for their upholding of the gendered perspective… or they dismissed for upholding a stale “gendered perspective” cliche…
it’s as if women writers can write whatever they want — it doesn’t matter — how they are read will always be gendered
so many strides have been made with regard to sexual & racial equality in the past 10,000 years, but this inherent misogyny seems to me to be a humongous, seemingly inextricable feature of western culture
we’re soooo superficially civilized
we’re so “liberal”
yet only men get to write write with a universal voice that no one (or very few) read through the lens of maleness or masculinity
when you read stevens or williams or beckett or pound do you think “what a great masculine voice!” i don’t… i think “this is genius”
very few women have escaped the trap of misogyny, but there are some, dickinson? maybe stein & bishop… but that is highly dubious – lots of people would disagree that any one of those geniuses embody “universality” – or aren’t inherently somehow female
but the problem is in our perception. it’s always “gendered versus universal,” not “not female versus male”
there’s probably no solution
even this perspective i am taking on this question feels very “universal” to me, but it is probably very “male” – though as a reader i don’t read it as such – wide-eyed blindness to my own blindness – pathetic
as jay-z says, maybe, the only thing is “if you’re feelin like a pimp, n###a, go and brush your shoulders off….. ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off”
a hilariously back-handed post-post-feminist chorus, but what are you gonna do, he’s awesome
it’s our perceptions that are misogynistic, and that crap gets programmed so early you don’t even want to know
brush your shoulders off, write the best thing you can write, fuck everything, just climb the ladder if you wanna be heard, and shout from the rooftops, who gives a shit if you’re gendered, it’s really between you & god, or you & you, anyway, what you say i mean, in poetry
i’m mad at myself because i haven’t been able to fix the paradox of misogyny
i’m not a woman but i always worry about this
how if women write with a “universal” voice, and write well–they are hailed first for being women… who happen to write…. well…. with a universal voice…
but if they write in a gendered voice, they are hailed for their upholding of the gendered perspective… or they dismissed for upholding a stale “gendered perspective” cliche…
it’s as if women writers can write whatever they want — it doesn’t matter — how they are read will always be gendered
so many strides have been made with regard to sexual & racial equality in the past 10,000 years, but this inherent misogyny seems to me to be a humongous, seemingly inextricable feature of western culture
we’re soooo superficially civilized
we’re so “liberal”
yet only men get to write write with a universal voice that no one (or very few) read through the lens of maleness or masculinity
when you read stevens or williams or beckett or pound do you think “what a great masculine voice!” i don’t… i think “this is genius”
very few women have escaped the trap of misogyny, but there are some, dickinson? maybe stein & bishop… but that is highly dubious – lots of people would disagree that any one of those geniuses embody “universality” – or aren’t inherently somehow female
but the problem is in our perception. it’s always “gendered versus universal,” not “not female versus male”
there’s probably no solution
even this perspective i am taking on this question feels very “universal” to me, but it is probably very “male” – though as a reader i don’t read it as such – wide-eyed blindness to my own blindness – pathetic
as jay-z says, maybe, the only thing is “if you’re feelin like a pimp, n###a, go and brush your shoulders off….. ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off”
a hilariously back-handed post-post-feminist chorus, but what are you gonna do, he’s awesome
it’s our perceptions that are misogynistic, and that crap gets programmed so early you don’t even want to know
brush your shoulders off, write the best thing you can write, fuck everything, just climb the ladder if you wanna be heard, and shout from the rooftops, who gives a shit if you’re gendered, it’s really between you & god, or you & you, anyway, what you say i mean, in poetry
i’m mad at myself because i haven’t been able to fix the paradox of misogyny
“yet only men get to write write with a universal voice that no one (or very few) read through the lens of maleness or masculinity”
This feels like an overstatement. I certainly think women have it worse in this regard, but male writers are read through a male lens still. I would not agree that their work is always or even ever called universal.
“yet only men get to write write with a universal voice that no one (or very few) read through the lens of maleness or masculinity”
This feels like an overstatement. I certainly think women have it worse in this regard, but male writers are read through a male lens still. I would not agree that their work is always or even ever called universal.
reading this comment through the lens of masculinity, you and i seem but two apes in an htmlcongo, sparring to see who is alpha
reading this comment through the lens of masculinity, you and i seem but two apes in an htmlcongo, sparring to see who is alpha
ross – hear hear, amazing, etc. you know there was a big dialogue about this around the time of the wack! art show in la, lots of woman artists didn’t want to be branded as “woman artists” or (gasp) feminist artists. and i wonder whether a lot of this has to do with the taboo of feminism, on one hand, and the inferiorization of chick lit on the other (not all books branded “chick lit” are inferior, but most chick-lit as this mass-produced market form is fairly formulaic stuff). i call myself a woman writer quite proudly, to be it is political, to say i am a woman writer. but i’m also a writer that deals a lot with issues of gender in their writing and the experiences of being a woman. not all woman writers do (obviously). so for those writers i can imagine them feeling typecast by being always qualified by their gender, as if they were single-issue people, to reword audre lorde.
and i think woman writers are still qualified as being “good, but…” in the mainstream. like my copy of djuna barnes’ nightwood, the old school new directions one, has that quote by dylan thomas “one of the three best novels ever written by a woman”. something like that. so i think woman can be excepted, often, can be branded as inferior especially if they write about the experience of being a woman, in one’s body or in society. but to me i embrace the notion of a minor literature, of l’ecriture feminine (which is not excluded to biologically woman writers and of course most woman writers don’t write l’ecriture feminine), of writing that reacts to and radicalizes the middle.
however, the notion of always branding someone a “woman writer” does smack of not only of essentialism (all woman writers are like this) as well as some sort of bias. it’s like the old frantz fanon argument in black skin white masks, that the black doctor is always a “black doctor.” it’s complicated i think.i guess it depends who’s doing the branding (does someone identify as a “woman writer” or are they identified against their will as a “woman writer”?) but i do wonder at those who shy away from the term, it does have undertones in it (however unconscious) that to be a woman is to be inferior.
ross – hear hear, amazing, etc. you know there was a big dialogue about this around the time of the wack! art show in la, lots of woman artists didn’t want to be branded as “woman artists” or (gasp) feminist artists. and i wonder whether a lot of this has to do with the taboo of feminism, on one hand, and the inferiorization of chick lit on the other (not all books branded “chick lit” are inferior, but most chick-lit as this mass-produced market form is fairly formulaic stuff). i call myself a woman writer quite proudly, to be it is political, to say i am a woman writer. but i’m also a writer that deals a lot with issues of gender in their writing and the experiences of being a woman. not all woman writers do (obviously). so for those writers i can imagine them feeling typecast by being always qualified by their gender, as if they were single-issue people, to reword audre lorde.
and i think woman writers are still qualified as being “good, but…” in the mainstream. like my copy of djuna barnes’ nightwood, the old school new directions one, has that quote by dylan thomas “one of the three best novels ever written by a woman”. something like that. so i think woman can be excepted, often, can be branded as inferior especially if they write about the experience of being a woman, in one’s body or in society. but to me i embrace the notion of a minor literature, of l’ecriture feminine (which is not excluded to biologically woman writers and of course most woman writers don’t write l’ecriture feminine), of writing that reacts to and radicalizes the middle.
however, the notion of always branding someone a “woman writer” does smack of not only of essentialism (all woman writers are like this) as well as some sort of bias. it’s like the old frantz fanon argument in black skin white masks, that the black doctor is always a “black doctor.” it’s complicated i think.i guess it depends who’s doing the branding (does someone identify as a “woman writer” or are they identified against their will as a “woman writer”?) but i do wonder at those who shy away from the term, it does have undertones in it (however unconscious) that to be a woman is to be inferior.
What is “universal”? I doubt there is such a thing – without further elaboration on what you mean I can’t really comment further, ecept to say that, in the wider culture “universality” generally means white, middle class, heronormative and male
What is “universal”? I doubt there is such a thing – without further elaboration on what you mean I can’t really comment further, ecept to say that, in the wider culture “universality” generally means white, middle class, heronormative and male
It’s funny how the vast majority of my favorite poets are either female, gay, from ethnic minorities, non-anglophone or some combination of these.
Totally destroys Silimans silly-man comments about “innovation” (but they were soooooo stupid anyway). Straight-White-Guy poets tend to be boring as fuck (except for me of course – and not to say that fuck is particularly boring…..)
It’s funny how the vast majority of my favorite poets are either female, gay, from ethnic minorities, non-anglophone or some combination of these.
Totally destroys Silimans silly-man comments about “innovation” (but they were soooooo stupid anyway). Straight-White-Guy poets tend to be boring as fuck (except for me of course – and not to say that fuck is particularly boring…..)
And I love Tracy Emin’s way of dealing with that stuff – “psyco [sic] slut”, and shoving mony up her vagina and the like.
It’s interesting how people would question the importance of being a woman to writer’s work, but they’d never question Tony Morrison’s Blackness, or the importance of Paul Celan’s Jewish herritage and experience as a holocaust survivor…….
And I love Tracy Emin’s way of dealing with that stuff – “psyco [sic] slut”, and shoving mony up her vagina and the like.
It’s interesting how people would question the importance of being a woman to writer’s work, but they’d never question Tony Morrison’s Blackness, or the importance of Paul Celan’s Jewish herritage and experience as a holocaust survivor…….
seems to me like sometimes male writers are criticized for writing in a way that seems not “masculine” or sometimes criticized for writing in a “masculine” way
either way it defines a style of writing called “masculine” which, the more often I read it, the less I seem to understand what its actual definition is
honestly I feel like I don’t understand the terms “feminine” or “masculine” as they refer to writing*. the way I see the terms used always seems weird and arbitrary, like the person who is saying it just “felt” that the writing relates the sense of a gender.
I dunno, I’m probably missing something. is this relevant at all to the point you were making, Lincoln?
*(maybe this might be interpreted as some kind of posturing like saying “I don’t see race” but I honestly don’t understand the distinction)
i think what bishop would object to is messud’s essay itself. if the group of writers are just what she chose, not necessarily intending to choose women, but just the writing she loved, then why not just do that and have that be the end of it. what purpose does the essay serve. i think in the end she wants to promote ‘women writers’ but is trying to avoid the trap bishop laid, so she does it more slyly via this essay, because now, more than caring to read the fiction itself, everyone is thinking about this guern issue as a women writers issue.
seems to me like sometimes male writers are criticized for writing in a way that seems not “masculine” or sometimes criticized for writing in a “masculine” way
either way it defines a style of writing called “masculine” which, the more often I read it, the less I seem to understand what its actual definition is
honestly I feel like I don’t understand the terms “feminine” or “masculine” as they refer to writing*. the way I see the terms used always seems weird and arbitrary, like the person who is saying it just “felt” that the writing relates the sense of a gender.
I dunno, I’m probably missing something. is this relevant at all to the point you were making, Lincoln?
*(maybe this might be interpreted as some kind of posturing like saying “I don’t see race” but I honestly don’t understand the distinction)
i think what bishop would object to is messud’s essay itself. if the group of writers are just what she chose, not necessarily intending to choose women, but just the writing she loved, then why not just do that and have that be the end of it. what purpose does the essay serve. i think in the end she wants to promote ‘women writers’ but is trying to avoid the trap bishop laid, so she does it more slyly via this essay, because now, more than caring to read the fiction itself, everyone is thinking about this guern issue as a women writers issue.
“universal” is the perception of universality that is often attributed by readers to the best & brightest musings of straight-ass white males
but in truth, universality is a myth
but it is not a myth that it is still, still, still so often perceived as universal…
“to be or not to be, that is the question” — makes it sound like some kind of ultimate question, doesn’t it? like.. for all of us, regardless of race / class / gender — but i’m not fooled and neither should you be.
“beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” — is the illusion of universality only
that’s why “universal” is in quotation marks
“universal” is the perception of universality that is often attributed by readers to the best & brightest musings of straight-ass white males
but in truth, universality is a myth
but it is not a myth that it is still, still, still so often perceived as universal…
“to be or not to be, that is the question” — makes it sound like some kind of ultimate question, doesn’t it? like.. for all of us, regardless of race / class / gender — but i’m not fooled and neither should you be.
“beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” — is the illusion of universality only
that’s why “universal” is in quotation marks
trying way too hard in that post
trying way too hard in that post
it’s a really compex issue, and nothing is clear-cut. But in a way, I think there is a lot of importance in how something “feels” in relation to gender – after all, literary writing (as I see it) is all about affect – otherwise you’d use journalistic, ‘transparent’ prose, no? The crux of it all is the affectual, “semiotic” (in the Kristevan sense), the protosemantic (that which comes “prior to meaning” – McCaffery).
And the pysicality of the language, whcih is definately there.
it’s a really compex issue, and nothing is clear-cut. But in a way, I think there is a lot of importance in how something “feels” in relation to gender – after all, literary writing (as I see it) is all about affect – otherwise you’d use journalistic, ‘transparent’ prose, no? The crux of it all is the affectual, “semiotic” (in the Kristevan sense), the protosemantic (that which comes “prior to meaning” – McCaffery).
And the pysicality of the language, whcih is definately there.
The thing there though, is that trying to avoid the issue of gender is an attempt to (intentionally or not) depoliticise the whole thing – which, once again, brings us to the New Critical falicy of artistic autonomy. Guy DeBord: “every speech act is a political act”. And all art operates in a semiotic economy (even stepping outside of signification into ‘pure’ formalism is a statement, and silence holds meaning), ergo all art is political.
Thus to attempt to depoliticise the gender issue of the issue (sorry, I couldn’t resist) is falacious, and a political stance.
The thing there though, is that trying to avoid the issue of gender is an attempt to (intentionally or not) depoliticise the whole thing – which, once again, brings us to the New Critical falicy of artistic autonomy. Guy DeBord: “every speech act is a political act”. And all art operates in a semiotic economy (even stepping outside of signification into ‘pure’ formalism is a statement, and silence holds meaning), ergo all art is political.
Thus to attempt to depoliticise the gender issue of the issue (sorry, I couldn’t resist) is falacious, and a political stance.
I agree with you, darby. I didn’t think the essay was necessary at all. I don’t know that I would have noticed it was an all women writers issue. That said, I also think that if Messud was going to “explain” her choices and try to make a statement, there could have been a more interesting way to go about it. I too would have been compelled to write some kind of essay about women writers, etc. but my approach would likely have been quite different.
what do you mean?
I agree with you, darby. I didn’t think the essay was necessary at all. I don’t know that I would have noticed it was an all women writers issue. That said, I also think that if Messud was going to “explain” her choices and try to make a statement, there could have been a more interesting way to go about it. I too would have been compelled to write some kind of essay about women writers, etc. but my approach would likely have been quite different.
what do you mean?
stop being fucking insecure. stop worrying about labels. just write.
jesus adolf christ.
stop being fucking insecure. stop worrying about labels. just write.
jesus adolf christ.
so you don’t think it’s important to know what you’re doing, and why?
serious question. I’m not being facitious.
so you don’t think it’s important to know what you’re doing, and why?
serious question. I’m not being facitious.
What on earth does insecurity have to do with it? No one is worrying here. It’s a discussion and if it bores you, move on.
What on earth does insecurity have to do with it? No one is worrying here. It’s a discussion and if it bores you, move on.
“Straight-White-Guy poets tend to be boring as fuck”
What the hell? As people? Are you talking about their work?
“Straight-White-Guy poets tend to be boring as fuck”
What the hell? As people? Are you talking about their work?
I don’t think it should be a mystery to you. “Straight white guy poets” tend to be boring as fuck? Jesus, I’m not even a “white guy” and I can smell the bullshit from here. You sound like one of those dudes who tries oh so hard to not be “what you are,” so you shit on what you are when in the presence of those who aren’t “what you are.” This kind of attitude is what I find boring.
Good post, Roxane.
I don’t think it should be a mystery to you. “Straight white guy poets” tend to be boring as fuck? Jesus, I’m not even a “white guy” and I can smell the bullshit from here. You sound like one of those dudes who tries oh so hard to not be “what you are,” so you shit on what you are when in the presence of those who aren’t “what you are.” This kind of attitude is what I find boring.
Good post, Roxane.
when i visit the guernica page, i see a bunch of links to stories by female writers squatting under a link to a story by a male writer. the male writer’s story gets top billing and a handsome illustration and the synopsis highlighted in gray. overall, the link to the male writer’s story takes up about 3X the real estate of the links to female writer’s stories
i don’t know what this is about. if this is a practical joke guernica is playing on messud or what. until i get a good explanation, the idea that female writers are even being done a solid here seems absurd
roxanne – it is a fantastic discussion, and worthwhile. and i keep on hearing it (i think doris lessing says this a lot, about her not wanting to be seen as a “woman writer”). although, whenever i go to barnes and noble (isn’t often) i fucking hate the “women’s literature” and “gay literature” and “african-american literature sections”. that seems like ghettoizing. although i love women writers, teach women’s literature, still pisses me off.
when i visit the guernica page, i see a bunch of links to stories by female writers squatting under a link to a story by a male writer. the male writer’s story gets top billing and a handsome illustration and the synopsis highlighted in gray. overall, the link to the male writer’s story takes up about 3X the real estate of the links to female writer’s stories
i don’t know what this is about. if this is a practical joke guernica is playing on messud or what. until i get a good explanation, the idea that female writers are even being done a solid here seems absurd
roxanne – it is a fantastic discussion, and worthwhile. and i keep on hearing it (i think doris lessing says this a lot, about her not wanting to be seen as a “woman writer”). although, whenever i go to barnes and noble (isn’t often) i fucking hate the “women’s literature” and “gay literature” and “african-american literature sections”. that seems like ghettoizing. although i love women writers, teach women’s literature, still pisses me off.
If we are talking about them as people – I, as a SWG, find it perfectly OK to be totally ‘boring.’ I am going to continue being ‘boring.’ ‘Boring’ is kind of good. There is value in being bored, in not moving for long spans of time.
If we are talking about them as people – I, as a SWG, find it perfectly OK to be totally ‘boring.’ I am going to continue being ‘boring.’ ‘Boring’ is kind of good. There is value in being bored, in not moving for long spans of time.
[…] HTML Giant – I am not sorry I have a vagina […]
This is because Roxanne was mistaken, Messud’s issue was a previous issue, not the current issue. The current issue features a story by a male writer and that’s why it is on top. Messud’s edited stories went up sometime around Feb 4th.
This is because Roxanne was mistaken, Messud’s issue was a previous issue, not the current issue. The current issue features a story by a male writer and that’s why it is on top. Messud’s edited stories went up sometime around Feb 4th.
is it even an all women writers issue? is the c dale young story not part of the current issue?
is it even an all women writers issue? is the c dale young story not part of the current issue?
When the Messud stories went up they had top billing and a large picture of her and large real estate (main front page image IIRC).
Can we hash this out a little bit? You’ve mentioned this twice now, and it’s giving me a kind of cognitive itch. . . . however, I’m not nearly as well-versed in theory as you are, so things might be kind of blunt and ham-handed on my end. . .
I think I agree with you in that turning the ‘text’ into a completely autonomous object was probably fallacious. But the stance you’re taking strikes as–at first, keeping in mind I’m still trying to wade through some of this stuff here–as the same error in reverse. The ‘text’ goes from autonomous art object to something totally determined by outside political forces. (See, now I’m not even sure what I mean by what I’m writing – this is getting muddled.) What does this mean?
And why are we dismissing ‘universality’ so quickly? The ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy – what shouldn’t be fooled by?
When the Messud stories went up they had top billing and a large picture of her and large real estate (main front page image IIRC).
Can we hash this out a little bit? You’ve mentioned this twice now, and it’s giving me a kind of cognitive itch. . . . however, I’m not nearly as well-versed in theory as you are, so things might be kind of blunt and ham-handed on my end. . .
I think I agree with you in that turning the ‘text’ into a completely autonomous object was probably fallacious. But the stance you’re taking strikes as–at first, keeping in mind I’m still trying to wade through some of this stuff here–as the same error in reverse. The ‘text’ goes from autonomous art object to something totally determined by outside political forces. (See, now I’m not even sure what I mean by what I’m writing – this is getting muddled.) What does this mean?
And why are we dismissing ‘universality’ so quickly? The ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy – what shouldn’t be fooled by?
I noted this below, but the all women’s fiction issue was from the first week of Feb. New work just went up the other day including the Young story.
I noted this below, but the all women’s fiction issue was from the first week of Feb. New work just went up the other day including the Young story.
we be fooled by*
we be fooled by*
ah, thank you. that really clears things up
ah, thank you. that really clears things up
i’m interested in how not writing a 1,000 word essay on a subject is necessarily an avoidance of that subject.
as if, on my way from one place to another, i could be said to be avoiding all the buildings i’m not walking past
i’m interested in how not writing a 1,000 word essay on a subject is necessarily an avoidance of that subject.
as if, on my way from one place to another, i could be said to be avoiding all the buildings i’m not walking past
“I guess it depends who’s doing the branding (does someone identify as a “woman writer” or are they identified against their will as a “woman writer”?) but i do wonder at those who shy away from the term, it does have undertones in it (however unconscious) that to be a woman is to be inferior.”
Stuff like this gives me headaches. I don’t know anyone personally who uses this kind of language. Maybe it’s why I don’t hang out with many writer-types. A lot of artists, though. And the ladies never define themselves as women as it is quite obvious that they are female. At least biologically. I would never call Barnes or Sexton or Maslowska or Reza (the latter being two of my favorite contemporary writers) “women writers” because it’s just as ridiculous as calling myself a “Chicano writer.”
The undertones of inferiority thing sounds like textbook “women’s studies” rhetoric. Sorry. Why is the first instinct in these cases is to assume the worst possible connotation? It couldn’t be maybe that women aren’t as prominent or as celebrated (for various reasons– a lot of them being systematic) as men, so it’s dinstinctive?
“I guess it depends who’s doing the branding (does someone identify as a “woman writer” or are they identified against their will as a “woman writer”?) but i do wonder at those who shy away from the term, it does have undertones in it (however unconscious) that to be a woman is to be inferior.”
Stuff like this gives me headaches. I don’t know anyone personally who uses this kind of language. Maybe it’s why I don’t hang out with many writer-types. A lot of artists, though. And the ladies never define themselves as women as it is quite obvious that they are female. At least biologically. I would never call Barnes or Sexton or Maslowska or Reza (the latter being two of my favorite contemporary writers) “women writers” because it’s just as ridiculous as calling myself a “Chicano writer.”
The undertones of inferiority thing sounds like textbook “women’s studies” rhetoric. Sorry. Why is the first instinct in these cases is to assume the worst possible connotation? It couldn’t be maybe that women aren’t as prominent or as celebrated (for various reasons– a lot of them being systematic) as men, so it’s dinstinctive?
i don’t know that we should dismiss it
it’s just that, when a white man whatever says something about a “universal” theme, that’s how it’s read, interpreted, received
when shakespeare asks to be or not to be, we really consider the dilemma of continuing to be
when a woman asks the very same question, we consider it a little less seriously, especially if we are men, because we subconsciously think first (and many critics seem to always be saying this) that it’s so great that a woman said this conventionally male thing, asked this question men usually ask, hooray for feminism, etc
another problem is praise – when i read a woman’s poetry that i love, really love, i fall in love with her voice as a female thing, with a female quality, that i can then adore from a male position of objectification / adoration
now this is quite a problem! i mean, maybe i’m just a caveman, but it seems to me at least sort of fucked up that even women whose work truly stirs me, i still see them as women, with a male gaze, the way one might look out one’s window at all the glory of nature… and want to bang it
maybe other men are nothing like that, i don’t know. but it’s just that when i read work by great men i like, i think aha! universal truth…
it’s like… math-beautiful to me, and i don’t want to bang it.. but contemplate it in a desexualized fashion, and apply it to my life (usually in order to make myself more attractive to women) like a tool or a piece of technology…
this is the saddest thing
i don’t know that we should dismiss it
it’s just that, when a white man whatever says something about a “universal” theme, that’s how it’s read, interpreted, received
when shakespeare asks to be or not to be, we really consider the dilemma of continuing to be
when a woman asks the very same question, we consider it a little less seriously, especially if we are men, because we subconsciously think first (and many critics seem to always be saying this) that it’s so great that a woman said this conventionally male thing, asked this question men usually ask, hooray for feminism, etc
another problem is praise – when i read a woman’s poetry that i love, really love, i fall in love with her voice as a female thing, with a female quality, that i can then adore from a male position of objectification / adoration
now this is quite a problem! i mean, maybe i’m just a caveman, but it seems to me at least sort of fucked up that even women whose work truly stirs me, i still see them as women, with a male gaze, the way one might look out one’s window at all the glory of nature… and want to bang it
maybe other men are nothing like that, i don’t know. but it’s just that when i read work by great men i like, i think aha! universal truth…
it’s like… math-beautiful to me, and i don’t want to bang it.. but contemplate it in a desexualized fashion, and apply it to my life (usually in order to make myself more attractive to women) like a tool or a piece of technology…
this is the saddest thing
please don’t fuck my poems, leidz.
please don’t fuck my poems, leidz.
leidz, a lot of that feels pretty foreign to me. I have no conception of men being more likely to bring up the dilemma of continuing to be. J.C. Oates is one of my very favorite writers, and I’ve always consider her work at its best to be pretty well universal in how it resonates. Same for Dickinson.
Is it really? If I, a white man, say something about universal affects in poetry–I’m speaking only about what joneses my general white-guyness? This just seems odd–does it not?
Death: death is universal: I read aloud a death poem: I find it moving, I gander that other people might also find it so: possibly “universal”: am I groping around in the dark?
leidz, a lot of that feels pretty foreign to me. I have no conception of men being more likely to bring up the dilemma of continuing to be. J.C. Oates is one of my very favorite writers, and I’ve always consider her work at its best to be pretty well universal in how it resonates. Same for Dickinson.
Is it really? If I, a white man, say something about universal affects in poetry–I’m speaking only about what joneses my general white-guyness? This just seems odd–does it not?
Death: death is universal: I read aloud a death poem: I find it moving, I gander that other people might also find it so: possibly “universal”: am I groping around in the dark?
understood and appreciated
understood and appreciated
I groaned.
The person who shared this probably did so just because it has the word “vagina.”
In other news, I just wanted to say that, and came here completely without the intention of reading any further than that interesting snippet of someone else’s writing.
Thanks.
I groaned.
The person who shared this probably did so just because it has the word “vagina.”
In other news, I just wanted to say that, and came here completely without the intention of reading any further than that interesting snippet of someone else’s writing.
Thanks.
“pretty well universal” lol – could your equivocation be more revealing?
as i’ve said, it’s not about how folks be writin, it’s bout how we be readin…
women are read through lenses & layers of femininity and feminism and all these other things – at best they get a ‘pretty well universal’ pat on the back
whereas men R more likely to be seen as closer to universal voice from the get-go
so when we read your poems we don’t think ‘wow this male is really rippin up the universalities!’ – we think ‘wow check out these deep sexless thoughts’ – (except we don’t even think ‘sexless’ because it never comes to mind, we just think ‘check out these deep thoughts’ ) — but when we read a woman we think ‘check out this sexxxxxxxed thought’ ‘damn check out this woman’ rippin up the universal, surfin, survivin, feminist heroine!
anyway maybe you’re, like i think you said, nothing like that – if so congrats
good examples though with the oates & the dickinson – though are they representative samples of how most women are read?
minor nitpick: death isn’t universal – more immortal male voices in the canon than women by an order of 100 to 1
“pretty well universal” lol – could your equivocation be more revealing?
as i’ve said, it’s not about how folks be writin, it’s bout how we be readin…
women are read through lenses & layers of femininity and feminism and all these other things – at best they get a ‘pretty well universal’ pat on the back
whereas men R more likely to be seen as closer to universal voice from the get-go
so when we read your poems we don’t think ‘wow this male is really rippin up the universalities!’ – we think ‘wow check out these deep sexless thoughts’ – (except we don’t even think ‘sexless’ because it never comes to mind, we just think ‘check out these deep thoughts’ ) — but when we read a woman we think ‘check out this sexxxxxxxed thought’ ‘damn check out this woman’ rippin up the universal, surfin, survivin, feminist heroine!
anyway maybe you’re, like i think you said, nothing like that – if so congrats
good examples though with the oates & the dickinson – though are they representative samples of how most women are read?
minor nitpick: death isn’t universal – more immortal male voices in the canon than women by an order of 100 to 1
I was just thinking earlier that I hadn’t seen a madore comment in a while.
I was just thinking earlier that I hadn’t seen a madore comment in a while.
its not depoliticizing in an absolute sense, its just choosing to not put politics so front-and-center. just because something is true doesnt mean it has an obligation to be in your face. its not denying the fact that there is an inherent political issue, its just choosing to ignore it.
saying all art is political is like saying the earth is round. while true, it doesnt dictate any obligatory action, its just true. art is political but that doesnt mean all viewers of art want to experience something politically charged or that every artist has an obligation to inform of the political aspects of everything.
its not depoliticizing in an absolute sense, its just choosing to not put politics so front-and-center. just because something is true doesnt mean it has an obligation to be in your face. its not denying the fact that there is an inherent political issue, its just choosing to ignore it.
saying all art is political is like saying the earth is round. while true, it doesnt dictate any obligatory action, its just true. art is political but that doesnt mean all viewers of art want to experience something politically charged or that every artist has an obligation to inform of the political aspects of everything.
Kathy Acker, Christine Brooke-Rose, Marguerite Rose.
Correction, Marguerite Young.
Kathy Acker, Christine Brooke-Rose, Marguerite Rose.
Correction, Marguerite Young.
hey, it’s what I think (and Im a SWG myself). I just find people who aren’t more interesting – they tend to be more aware of what they’re doing, and the implications, and the context they’re working in. a lot of SWGs could learn from reading more widely, and not as a chore – for enjoyment (I’m reminded of the post here late last year about “towering literary giants”). non SWG writers also tend to be more aware of the fact that what they do matters, and has consequences.
their work.
hey, it’s what I think (and Im a SWG myself). I just find people who aren’t more interesting – they tend to be more aware of what they’re doing, and the implications, and the context they’re working in. a lot of SWGs could learn from reading more widely, and not as a chore – for enjoyment (I’m reminded of the post here late last year about “towering literary giants”). non SWG writers also tend to be more aware of the fact that what they do matters, and has consequences.
their work.
I’m not arguing for total political determinism, but simply the awareness that work operates in a totally politicised discourse – that it never exists just as it is – It is produced by someone in a political situation, and is produced by a writer who is driven by their political situation and beliefs (be these concious or subconcious) then published and edited by as similarly political agent, read by one again, who is bringing the politicality of their life in language, and their previous readings to the work, then taught, then anthologied…..
it’s choices, not avoidance. one naturally prioritises things.
I’m not arguing for total political determinism, but simply the awareness that work operates in a totally politicised discourse – that it never exists just as it is – It is produced by someone in a political situation, and is produced by a writer who is driven by their political situation and beliefs (be these concious or subconcious) then published and edited by as similarly political agent, read by one again, who is bringing the politicality of their life in language, and their previous readings to the work, then taught, then anthologied…..
it’s choices, not avoidance. one naturally prioritises things.
And if you do a historical survey of death in literature, I have a good feeling that it is treated differently by male and female authors, dealing with male and female characters
And if you do a historical survey of death in literature, I have a good feeling that it is treated differently by male and female authors, dealing with male and female characters
so art should be consumer-choice driven?
I may be somewhat ridiculous in my radicalism, but isn’t art that isn’t “politically charged”, or attempting to pretend that such isn’t there, a tacit approval of the status quo? (which is what most audiences want, I suppose).
If you feel strongly about an issue, I think the obligation exists, yes. Or their is at least an obligation of discourse, of discussing such. But then I’m a big fan of DeBord, and his attempts to break down the boundary between art and life, and I’d like to see a class-ethnic-gender-etc conciousness instilled in as many people as possible, so people have enough to get by on.
someone a while back on this blog was told to “grow some Marxism”. I had some already, but it’s blossoming like a weed now.
so art should be consumer-choice driven?
I may be somewhat ridiculous in my radicalism, but isn’t art that isn’t “politically charged”, or attempting to pretend that such isn’t there, a tacit approval of the status quo? (which is what most audiences want, I suppose).
If you feel strongly about an issue, I think the obligation exists, yes. Or their is at least an obligation of discourse, of discussing such. But then I’m a big fan of DeBord, and his attempts to break down the boundary between art and life, and I’d like to see a class-ethnic-gender-etc conciousness instilled in as many people as possible, so people have enough to get by on.
someone a while back on this blog was told to “grow some Marxism”. I had some already, but it’s blossoming like a weed now.
it’s like in NZ we have NZ lit sections in the bookshops, NZ music sections in the record stores, and there’s never any of the really good stuff in there either, eccept maybe the Chills and the Dead C.
it’s like in NZ we have NZ lit sections in the bookshops, NZ music sections in the record stores, and there’s never any of the really good stuff in there either, eccept maybe the Chills and the Dead C.
I need to read more Acker.
I need to read more Acker.
Hmmm, I’m not so interested in continuing this conversation if you’re going to take ‘pretty well universal’ and make it sound like some silent smirking pat on the back. ‘Pretty well’ was a speech tic meant to connote humility. In truth I think that the best work of Oates/Dickinson flat-out IS universal, but since universality was the concept at question, I hedged a bit in an effort to show that I was genuinely trying to step away from my own assumptions – I was trying to show that I was willing to slough off my fixation w/ ‘universality,’ depending upon where the conversation took us.
For what its worth, I mentally think of Oates and Dickinson as human symbols of artistry at its apex. Both of them, I think, were so finely tuned in to their own subconsciousnesses(sp?) that they posses a level of artistic control not rarely seen. They are the two writers I feel most often looking over my shoulder–“breathing down my back”–as I write….
I still think what you’re describing here sounds pretty foreign. It almost sounds as if you’re reading too much with your ‘head.’ In my experience, reading w/ as much of yourself (your ‘soul’) made vulnerable as possible – these kinds of things don’t happen.
And I think all of those ‘immortal male voices’ were attached to bodies that died. And I think poets within the same gender/race category have also treated death different – heck, the same poet has probably treated death vastly differently, within a given career. *These* seem like the equivocations here, to me.
Hmmm, I’m not so interested in continuing this conversation if you’re going to take ‘pretty well universal’ and make it sound like some silent smirking pat on the back. ‘Pretty well’ was a speech tic meant to connote humility. In truth I think that the best work of Oates/Dickinson flat-out IS universal, but since universality was the concept at question, I hedged a bit in an effort to show that I was genuinely trying to step away from my own assumptions – I was trying to show that I was willing to slough off my fixation w/ ‘universality,’ depending upon where the conversation took us.
For what its worth, I mentally think of Oates and Dickinson as human symbols of artistry at its apex. Both of them, I think, were so finely tuned in to their own subconsciousnesses(sp?) that they posses a level of artistic control not rarely seen. They are the two writers I feel most often looking over my shoulder–“breathing down my back”–as I write….
I still think what you’re describing here sounds pretty foreign. It almost sounds as if you’re reading too much with your ‘head.’ In my experience, reading w/ as much of yourself (your ‘soul’) made vulnerable as possible – these kinds of things don’t happen.
And I think all of those ‘immortal male voices’ were attached to bodies that died. And I think poets within the same gender/race category have also treated death different – heck, the same poet has probably treated death vastly differently, within a given career. *These* seem like the equivocations here, to me.
control rarely seen*
control rarely seen*
damn well said, amber.
imagine anyone saying that ryan call is a terrific male writer…did you read his piece in lamination colony? that dude sure didn’t spend all his time as a kid fielding pop-ups!
damn well said, amber.
imagine anyone saying that ryan call is a terrific male writer…did you read his piece in lamination colony? that dude sure didn’t spend all his time as a kid fielding pop-ups!
I’m tempted to agree w/ this, darby. In fact I think all really great art is probably politically charged – tacit approvals of the status quo tend to be not so thrilling.
But I think there are useful ways to talk about a great work of art that doesn’t foreground the politics. I mean, I find both kind of fascinating, but the political discussions seem better at informing me about the ‘text,’ the physical product in the world, the ink-on-paper object that some person created. And honestly I usually find these discussions interesting more for the nuances inherent in the critical system/method being brought to bear on the text–not so much what they’re actually saying about the actual text. Criticism that tries to address ‘story’ though (as opposed to ‘text’)–that tries to talk about the explosive imaginative event that goes on inside my head as I read–these seem useful, too. And I think Ross would agree, since he’s already said he’s not arguing for a total political determinism – ?
Either way–aside from the regrettable boring-white-guy stuff–I’ve loved this discussion, all. These threads are what convince me that HTML is worth hanging around at, despite the idiocy of guys like Chen.
I’m tempted to agree w/ this, darby. In fact I think all really great art is probably politically charged – tacit approvals of the status quo tend to be not so thrilling.
But I think there are useful ways to talk about a great work of art that doesn’t foreground the politics. I mean, I find both kind of fascinating, but the political discussions seem better at informing me about the ‘text,’ the physical product in the world, the ink-on-paper object that some person created. And honestly I usually find these discussions interesting more for the nuances inherent in the critical system/method being brought to bear on the text–not so much what they’re actually saying about the actual text. Criticism that tries to address ‘story’ though (as opposed to ‘text’)–that tries to talk about the explosive imaginative event that goes on inside my head as I read–these seem useful, too. And I think Ross would agree, since he’s already said he’s not arguing for a total political determinism – ?
Either way–aside from the regrettable boring-white-guy stuff–I’ve loved this discussion, all. These threads are what convince me that HTML is worth hanging around at, despite the idiocy of guys like Chen.
Spencer Dew is a huge Acker fan and works her into his stories a lot, at least in his “Songs of Insurgency” pieces. She sounds quite interesting. Keep meaning to read her.
Spencer Dew is a huge Acker fan and works her into his stories a lot, at least in his “Songs of Insurgency” pieces. She sounds quite interesting. Keep meaning to read her.
but doesnt that make the distinction kind of useless? if the characterization of style in terms of gender can’t be even approximated through some kind of method, how can the expression of such a judgment actually communicate anything?
I mean if I don’t know what a person is saying when they say someone’s style is “masculine” which is based on intuition, and I can’t approximate an understanding of it through some kind of research, what use is such a term
don’t know if I’m making sense, feel like I’m having trouble communicating
but doesnt that make the distinction kind of useless? if the characterization of style in terms of gender can’t be even approximated through some kind of method, how can the expression of such a judgment actually communicate anything?
I mean if I don’t know what a person is saying when they say someone’s style is “masculine” which is based on intuition, and I can’t approximate an understanding of it through some kind of research, what use is such a term
don’t know if I’m making sense, feel like I’m having trouble communicating
“but isn’t art that isn’t ‘politically charged’, or attempting to pretend that such isn’t there, a tacit approval of the status quo?”
not necessarily. at least i hope not. depends what you mean by politically charged. personally, politically charged stuff is usually the least interesting. if i agree with the politics already, what’s the point. if i don’t, i’m really not going to like it.
“but isn’t art that isn’t ‘politically charged’, or attempting to pretend that such isn’t there, a tacit approval of the status quo?”
not necessarily. at least i hope not. depends what you mean by politically charged. personally, politically charged stuff is usually the least interesting. if i agree with the politics already, what’s the point. if i don’t, i’m really not going to like it.
you know, my sister has started sending me some of her additions to the field guide, and her entries are amazing.
you know, my sister has started sending me some of her additions to the field guide, and her entries are amazing.
Men get called “male writers” all the time. There was just a whole idiotic thing about male writers and how they write about sex. And dead white male writers (Shakespeare, Milton, Tolstoy, Melville, et al.) are constantly derided as dead white male writers. I sometimes feel like being a living white male writer makes it harder — eg, with some excepttions, honestly portrayed white male experience is not considered marketable any longer, unless you’re a white male immigrant to NYC (Netherworld, Let the Great World Spin).
Men get called “male writers” all the time. There was just a whole idiotic thing about male writers and how they write about sex. And dead white male writers (Shakespeare, Milton, Tolstoy, Melville, et al.) are constantly derided as dead white male writers. I sometimes feel like being a living white male writer makes it harder — eg, with some excepttions, honestly portrayed white male experience is not considered marketable any longer, unless you’re a white male immigrant to NYC (Netherworld, Let the Great World Spin).
she’s a great female writer, that’s for sure
she’s a great female writer, that’s for sure
hmm, maybe they do and i don’t pay enough attention. yes, i have heard the dead white male writers thing, too. damn you, paul, for making me think harder about this.
hmm, maybe they do and i don’t pay enough attention. yes, i have heard the dead white male writers thing, too. damn you, paul, for making me think harder about this.
that’s because your sister is rad like bum shorts and cross-color tshirts.
i miss the christy & ryan dialogue from the old days.
you two are funny.
that’s because your sister is rad like bum shorts and cross-color tshirts.
i miss the christy & ryan dialogue from the old days.
you two are funny.
if you don’t see the insecurity, the dripping fucking insecurity, i don’t know what else to say.
the discussion does not bore me, it makes me sad. i feel sad for people i think should not have a weak-minded view but they do.
i will admit i was grumpy when i wrote the original comment but i’m not taking it back.
i don’t understand the need to give power to something, the fact you are worrying about labels gives that something a power over you, in everything you do, it influences like a cancer.
embrace your gender. god why wouldn’t you embrace your gender. you are a woman. i am a male. we are different.
the only way there will be some sort of understanding is through a genuine effort.
you write like a chick. you are a woman writer.
so.
why does that matter.
it matters because it hurts your identity.
people don’t care about the masses, they care about how things attack their personal identity.
you fret over a “universal voice”, not because it means anything, because you are insecure.
you are worried about labels.
why?
you should write because it feels good.
because the day is blue.
you should write to write.
not to appease some “group” of assholes who want to label you.
the haters will always hate.
and so?
if you don’t see the insecurity, the dripping fucking insecurity, i don’t know what else to say.
the discussion does not bore me, it makes me sad. i feel sad for people i think should not have a weak-minded view but they do.
i will admit i was grumpy when i wrote the original comment but i’m not taking it back.
i don’t understand the need to give power to something, the fact you are worrying about labels gives that something a power over you, in everything you do, it influences like a cancer.
embrace your gender. god why wouldn’t you embrace your gender. you are a woman. i am a male. we are different.
the only way there will be some sort of understanding is through a genuine effort.
you write like a chick. you are a woman writer.
so.
why does that matter.
it matters because it hurts your identity.
people don’t care about the masses, they care about how things attack their personal identity.
you fret over a “universal voice”, not because it means anything, because you are insecure.
you are worried about labels.
why?
you should write because it feels good.
because the day is blue.
you should write to write.
not to appease some “group” of assholes who want to label you.
the haters will always hate.
and so?
what i am saying, ross, is it is just as important to know what you are doing and when not to do it.
it is always a matter of awareness.
arguing for and against only grants the “label” a power, regardless of how earnest your effort.
what i am saying, ross, is it is just as important to know what you are doing and when not to do it.
it is always a matter of awareness.
arguing for and against only grants the “label” a power, regardless of how earnest your effort.
So you freely admit that your writing is boring? Or are you a diamond in the rough? “SWG’s could learn from reading more widely.” Hey man, when’s your book about writing for the straight white guy coming out, so I can put it in the trash where it belongs with all the other “on writing” texts.
I don’t know. If I came on here and said something like, “I think female poets are boring and have nothing to say; they could benefit from learning how to let go of their daddy issues,” there’d be plenty of backlash. But I wouldn’t say that, because I don’t actually believe that. You believe what you said, because you defended it with generalizations about the writers you’ve grouped together based on descriptive elements that have nothing to do with the quality of writing.
And I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying that SWG writers “[they] tend to be more aware of what they’re doing, and the implications, and the context they’re working in.” Or are you referring to non SWG’s, because the final sentence, to me, implies that you were talking about nons all along.
So you freely admit that your writing is boring? Or are you a diamond in the rough? “SWG’s could learn from reading more widely.” Hey man, when’s your book about writing for the straight white guy coming out, so I can put it in the trash where it belongs with all the other “on writing” texts.
I don’t know. If I came on here and said something like, “I think female poets are boring and have nothing to say; they could benefit from learning how to let go of their daddy issues,” there’d be plenty of backlash. But I wouldn’t say that, because I don’t actually believe that. You believe what you said, because you defended it with generalizations about the writers you’ve grouped together based on descriptive elements that have nothing to do with the quality of writing.
And I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying that SWG writers “[they] tend to be more aware of what they’re doing, and the implications, and the context they’re working in.” Or are you referring to non SWG’s, because the final sentence, to me, implies that you were talking about nons all along.
Good point, Matt.
“I’d like to see a class-ethnic-gender-etc conciousness instilled in as many people as possible, so people have enough to get by on.”
I’m fairly conscious of who I am, and where I’m from, and what my strengths and limitations are. I don’t need some SWG telling me that I’m being oppressed, or that I should utilize politically empowering language, etc.
My question to you is that, if you were to ever change the status quo, would you not then be a product of the new status quo? Of course you would. So what do you do? You alter the political language again.
So, I’ll see your Debord and raise you a Lester Bangs:
“The first mistake of art is to assume it’s serious.”
Good point, Matt.
“I’d like to see a class-ethnic-gender-etc conciousness instilled in as many people as possible, so people have enough to get by on.”
I’m fairly conscious of who I am, and where I’m from, and what my strengths and limitations are. I don’t need some SWG telling me that I’m being oppressed, or that I should utilize politically empowering language, etc.
My question to you is that, if you were to ever change the status quo, would you not then be a product of the new status quo? Of course you would. So what do you do? You alter the political language again.
So, I’ll see your Debord and raise you a Lester Bangs:
“The first mistake of art is to assume it’s serious.”
It’s not that I’m saying there’s no such thing as the lumping together of some male writers, I just don’t think when a man writes a book he’s automatically called a “male writer.” Or that anyone assumes that all male writers are doing the same basic thing. Whereas I write a piece, and someone calls me a “woman writer,” and then what does that mean? I’m just a writer.
I do get the difficulty for white males to some extent–but I think as much as certain groups deride “dead white males” as a group, male writers as a whole are still not classified as any one thing. That article was about young male writers, and most people strongly objected to the writer’s lumping together of all young guys who write.
It’s not that I’m saying there’s no such thing as the lumping together of some male writers, I just don’t think when a man writes a book he’s automatically called a “male writer.” Or that anyone assumes that all male writers are doing the same basic thing. Whereas I write a piece, and someone calls me a “woman writer,” and then what does that mean? I’m just a writer.
I do get the difficulty for white males to some extent–but I think as much as certain groups deride “dead white males” as a group, male writers as a whole are still not classified as any one thing. That article was about young male writers, and most people strongly objected to the writer’s lumping together of all young guys who write.
he fell off the wagon
he fell off the wagon
Due to a long history of sexism, homosexuals being a small minority of the population, and a eurocentric focus, straight white guy poets make up the majority of the history of western poetry. I find it pretty hard to believe that you can care about poetry and really stand behind that statement. Sorry, it reads less like any kind of serious statement and more like a knee jerk attempt to show how down with the people you are or something.
Due to a long history of sexism, homosexuals being a small minority of the population, and a eurocentric focus, straight white guy poets make up the majority of the history of western poetry. I find it pretty hard to believe that you can care about poetry and really stand behind that statement. Sorry, it reads less like any kind of serious statement and more like a knee jerk attempt to show how down with the people you are or something.
“non SWG writers also tend to be more aware of the fact that what they do matters, and has consequences.”
Um, straightness, whiteness and guyness aside, since when do what poets do matter or have consequence?
“non SWG writers also tend to be more aware of the fact that what they do matters, and has consequences.”
Um, straightness, whiteness and guyness aside, since when do what poets do matter or have consequence?
LOVE the field guides. Want more. See, that’s exactly why I don’t want to be classified as a woman writer. I like writing and reading about science. And history. And the outdoors. And monsters and video games and fairy tales and movies and board games and re-enactors. I’m not a woman writer. I’m a whatever-peaks-my-interest-kind-of-writer. Occasionally I will write about gender (see the latest issue of PANK) but not often and it doesn’t define my work well to put “woman” in front of it, because again, what does that mean if it doesn’t mean “I write about women or being a woman and that is a significant part of my work?” Like Kate mentions below, I have friends who are feminist artists and they embrace the term because that’s what they set out to do–make paintings or sculptures or collages that are politically charged regarding gender and sexuality from a female perspective. But that’s not what I do, so it’s not what I am. If that makes any sense.
LOVE the field guides. Want more. See, that’s exactly why I don’t want to be classified as a woman writer. I like writing and reading about science. And history. And the outdoors. And monsters and video games and fairy tales and movies and board games and re-enactors. I’m not a woman writer. I’m a whatever-peaks-my-interest-kind-of-writer. Occasionally I will write about gender (see the latest issue of PANK) but not often and it doesn’t define my work well to put “woman” in front of it, because again, what does that mean if it doesn’t mean “I write about women or being a woman and that is a significant part of my work?” Like Kate mentions below, I have friends who are feminist artists and they embrace the term because that’s what they set out to do–make paintings or sculptures or collages that are politically charged regarding gender and sexuality from a female perspective. But that’s not what I do, so it’s not what I am. If that makes any sense.
@ ross re status quo: no. because there’s nothing to say that the purpose of art is to invoke social change. all art is only political in the sense that their definitions happen to collide, not that they share similar purposes for existing. i agree with stu re bangs: art is not serious. questions of status quo apply to things like bills in congress, not what i eat for breakfast.
@ ross re status quo: no. because there’s nothing to say that the purpose of art is to invoke social change. all art is only political in the sense that their definitions happen to collide, not that they share similar purposes for existing. i agree with stu re bangs: art is not serious. questions of status quo apply to things like bills in congress, not what i eat for breakfast.
i had similar thoughts after reading this post, though maybe not quite as vehemently. i tend to see the over-lamenting of the plight of anything as making the lamenter’s insecurity more transparent. Especially in this case when it doesn’t seem like there’s really that much to worry about that is tangible, ie not just a label. I mean what is the real tangible problem with being a woman writer. are opportunities really that much more strained?
i had similar thoughts after reading this post, though maybe not quite as vehemently. i tend to see the over-lamenting of the plight of anything as making the lamenter’s insecurity more transparent. Especially in this case when it doesn’t seem like there’s really that much to worry about that is tangible, ie not just a label. I mean what is the real tangible problem with being a woman writer. are opportunities really that much more strained?
“you write like a chick.”
just tossed some popcorn in the microwave
“you write like a chick.”
just tossed some popcorn in the microwave
hahaha, i aim to please.
hahaha, i aim to please.
darby,
i have my way of saying things, i know, but it is not vehemence but frustration in this case.
darby,
i have my way of saying things, i know, but it is not vehemence but frustration in this case.
all kidding aside, i can’t wait for that guide. “Funnel as Paranormal Conduit” is one of my favorite pieces to read when I’m stuck.
all kidding aside, i can’t wait for that guide. “Funnel as Paranormal Conduit” is one of my favorite pieces to read when I’m stuck.
no, i appreciate it i guess because it allows me to flush out my thoughts on it.
the thing here for me is it didnt make me think of roxane herself as an insecure person. i dont like to jump to psychoanalytical assumptions with people ive never met before. i agree this post can be read as insecure but, for me messud’s essay is the root of insecurity in all this. i think roxane was just rhetoricizing to get a conversation going about it.
no, i appreciate it i guess because it allows me to flush out my thoughts on it.
the thing here for me is it didnt make me think of roxane herself as an insecure person. i dont like to jump to psychoanalytical assumptions with people ive never met before. i agree this post can be read as insecure but, for me messud’s essay is the root of insecurity in all this. i think roxane was just rhetoricizing to get a conversation going about it.
yeah, my original comment wasn’t directed towards roxane, but everyone in general.
she just happened to be the person to answer.
yeah, my original comment wasn’t directed towards roxane, but everyone in general.
she just happened to be the person to answer.
I hear what you’re saying but your comment implies that being a woman writer is somehow antithetical to writing about science and history and so on and so forth. I write about all manner of subjects and womanhood, I don’t think, has never been the focus. For myself, the woman thing doesn’t precede or define my writing but I’m increasingly less interested in making statements about how those two things are separate like the woman part is somehow a burden. I’m not saying that’s what your doing but I’m really fascinated by how for so many women writers they seem to want to run as far away from the word “woman” as possible.
Earlier, you mentioned that men aren’t called male writers but I don’t think the comparison is as easy as that.
I hear what you’re saying but your comment implies that being a woman writer is somehow antithetical to writing about science and history and so on and so forth. I write about all manner of subjects and womanhood, I don’t think, has never been the focus. For myself, the woman thing doesn’t precede or define my writing but I’m increasingly less interested in making statements about how those two things are separate like the woman part is somehow a burden. I’m not saying that’s what your doing but I’m really fascinated by how for so many women writers they seem to want to run as far away from the word “woman” as possible.
Earlier, you mentioned that men aren’t called male writers but I don’t think the comparison is as easy as that.
You’re misrepresenting me. Emphasis on TEND. And you’re pretty god-damn defensive about reading widely – and about your privledged position. That analogy is ridiculous, and offensive. It doesn’t follow at all. Implying that all female writers have daddy issues (aside from the incredibly patronising term) is ridiculous, and has no relationship to a suggestion that you might want to read more culturally diverse texts.
And quality of writing? if you want a list, I’ll give it to you, but you’ve said nothing on the subect either. I will say though that the majority of the best poets of the latter half of the century have been gay, black, female, or some other marginalised group.
And if you’d been reading what I’ve been saying you would know that I believe everything is of consequence, and everything is political. If it doesn’t matter, then why the fuck would anyone do it?
You’re misrepresenting me. Emphasis on TEND. And you’re pretty god-damn defensive about reading widely – and about your privledged position. That analogy is ridiculous, and offensive. It doesn’t follow at all. Implying that all female writers have daddy issues (aside from the incredibly patronising term) is ridiculous, and has no relationship to a suggestion that you might want to read more culturally diverse texts.
And quality of writing? if you want a list, I’ll give it to you, but you’ve said nothing on the subect either. I will say though that the majority of the best poets of the latter half of the century have been gay, black, female, or some other marginalised group.
And if you’d been reading what I’ve been saying you would know that I believe everything is of consequence, and everything is political. If it doesn’t matter, then why the fuck would anyone do it?
I can’t speak for history, because of the biases in cannonical formation you mention. I’m speaking about now. as I say in my earlier post, the majority of interesting post-war poetry has been written by culturally marginalised figures. Langpo is female-dominated, there’s the “gurlesque”; Donald Allen’s anthology was full of gay writers.
I can’t speak for history, because of the biases in cannonical formation you mention. I’m speaking about now. as I say in my earlier post, the majority of interesting post-war poetry has been written by culturally marginalised figures. Langpo is female-dominated, there’s the “gurlesque”; Donald Allen’s anthology was full of gay writers.
DAmn – the whole point of this is that with the labels, the power is already there
DAmn – the whole point of this is that with the labels, the power is already there
problem – assumption that it’s all about the “you”.
Its about writing, and reading; and the multitude of people involved there. it’s not “my” identity, or roxane’s
problem – assumption that it’s all about the “you”.
Its about writing, and reading; and the multitude of people involved there. it’s not “my” identity, or roxane’s
if you’re looking for a verifyable scientific method, lit/cultural studies is the wrong field – if literature could be quantified thus it’d be redundant – nevertheless there is a large body of theory. I can recomend stuff to check out if you want.
if you’re looking for a verifyable scientific method, lit/cultural studies is the wrong field – if literature could be quantified thus it’d be redundant – nevertheless there is a large body of theory. I can recomend stuff to check out if you want.
Serious question: what is the purpose of art?
Disclaimer: I’m a big fan of fluxus/situationist etc stuff about breaking down the boundaries between life and art. And regarding bills in congress, without some kind of outside intervention/pressure, not a hell of a lot gets done that way (except for continual shoring up of the status quo).
And not being serious is definately not synonymous with apoliticality – look at Bill Hicks, Dada in general…..
Serious question: what is the purpose of art?
Disclaimer: I’m a big fan of fluxus/situationist etc stuff about breaking down the boundaries between life and art. And regarding bills in congress, without some kind of outside intervention/pressure, not a hell of a lot gets done that way (except for continual shoring up of the status quo).
And not being serious is definately not synonymous with apoliticality – look at Bill Hicks, Dada in general…..
Purpose of art
Art has had a great number of different functions throughout its history, making its purpose difficult to extract or quantify to any single concept. This does not imply that the purpose of Art is “vague”, but that it has had many unique, different, reasons for being created. Some of these functions of Art are provided in the following outline. The different purposes of art may be grouped according to those which are non-motivated, and those which are motivated (Levi-Strauss).
Non-motivated functions of art
The non-motivated purposes of art are those which are integral to being human, transcend the individual, or do not fulfill a specific external purpose. Aristotle has said, “Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature.” In this sense, Art, as creativity, is something which humans must do by their very nature (i.e. no other species creates art), and is therefore beyond utility.
1. Basic human instinct for harmony, balance, rhythm. Art at this level is not an action or an object, but an internal appreciation of balance and harmony (beauty), and therefore an aspect of being human beyond utility.
“Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature. Next, there is the instinct for ‘harmony’ and rhythm, meters being manifestly sections of rhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural gift developed by degrees their special aptitudes, till their rude improvisations gave birth to Poetry.” -Aristotle
2. Experience of the mysterious. Art provides us with a way to experience ourselves in relation to the universe. This experience may often come unmotivated, as we appreciate art, music or poetry.
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.” -Albert Einstein
3. Expression of the imagination. Art provide a means to express the imagination in non-grammatic ways that are not tied to the formality of spoken or written language. Unlike words, which come in sequences and each of which have a definite meaning, art provides a range of forms, symbols and ideas with meanings that are maleable.
“Jupiter’s eagle [as an example of art] is not, like logical (aesthetic) attributes of an object, the concept of the sublimity and majesty of creation, but rather something else – something that gives the imagination an incentive to spread its flight over a whole host of kindred representations that provoke more thought than admits of expression in a concept determined by words. They furnish an aesthetic idea, which serves the above rational idea as a substitute for logical presentation, but with the proper function, however, of animating the mind by opening out for it a prospect into a field of kindred representations stretching beyond its ken.” -Immanuel Kant
4. Universal communication. Art allows the individual to express things toward the world as a whole. Earth artists often create art in remote locations that will never be experienced by another person. The practice of placing a cairn, or pile of stones at the top of a mountain, is an example. (Note: This need not suggest a particular view of God, or religion.) Art created in this way is a form of communication between the individual and the world as a whole.
5. Ritualistic and symbolic functions. In many cultures, art is used in rituals, performances and dances as a decoration or symbol. While these often have no specific utilitarian (motivated) purpose, anthropologists know that they often serve a purpose at the level of meaning within a particular culture. This meaning is not furnished by any one individual, but is often the result of many generations of change, and of a cosmological relationship within the culture.
“Most scholars who deal with rock paintings or objects recovered from prehistoric contexts that cannot be explained in utilitarian terms and are thus categorized as decorative, ritual or symbolic, are aware of the trap posed by the term ‘art’.” -Silva Tomaskova
Motivated functions of art
The purposes of art which are motivated refer to intentional, conscious actions on the part of the artists or creator. These may be to bring about political change, to comment on an aspect of society, to convey a specific emotion or mood, to address personal psychology, to illustrate another discipline, to (with commercial arts) to sell a product, or simply as a form of communication.
1. Communication. Art, at its simplest, is a form of communication. As most forms of communication have an intent or goal directed toward another individual, this is a motivated purpose. Illustrative arts, such as scientific illustration, are a form of art as communication. Maps are another example. However, the content need not be scientific. Emotions, moods and feelings are also communicated through art.
“[Art is a set of] artefacts or images with symbolic meanings as a means of communication.” -Steve Mithen
2. Art as entertainment. Art may seek to bring about a particular emotion or mood, for the purpose of relaxing or entertaining the viewer. This is often the function of the art industries of Motion Pictures and Video Games.
3. The Avante-Garde. Art for political change. One of the defining functions of early twentieth century art has been to use visual images to bring about political change. The art movements which had this goal – Dadaism, Surrealism, Russian Constructivism, and Abstract Expressionism, among others – are collectively referred to as the avante-garde arts.
“By contrast, the realistic attitude, inspired by positivism, from Saint Thomas Aquinas to Anatole France, clearly seems to me to be hostile to any intellectual or moral advancement. I loathe it, for it is made up of mediocrity, hate, and dull conceit. It is this attitude which today gives birth to these ridiculous books, these insulting plays. It constantly feeds on and derives strength from the newspapers and stultifies both science and art by assiduously flattering the lowest of tastes; clarity bordering on stupidity, a dog’s life.” -Andre Breton (Surrealism)
4. Art for psychological and healing purposes. Art is also used by art therapists, psychotherapists and clinical psychologists as art therapy. The Diagnostic Drawing Series, for example, is used to determine the personality and emotional functioning of a patient. The end product is not the principal goal in this case, but rather a process of healing, through creative acts, is sought. The resultant piece of artwork may also offer insight into the troubles experienced by the subject and may suggest suitable approaches to be used in more conventional forms of psychiatric therapy.
5. Art for social inquiry, subversion and/or anarchy. While similar to art for political change, subversive or deconstructivist art may seek to question aspects of society without any specific political goal. In this case, the function of art may be simply to criticize some aspect of society. Graffiti art and other types of street art are graphics and images that are spray-painted or stencilled on publicly viewable walls, buildings, buses, trains, and bridges, usually without permission. Certain art forms, such as graffiti, may also be illegal when they break laws (in this case vandalism).
6. Art for propaganda, or commercialism. Art is often utilized as a form of propaganda, and thus can be used to subtly influence popular conceptions or mood. In a similar way, art which seeks to sell a product also influences mood and emotion. In both cases, the purpose of art here is to subtly manipulate the viewer into a particular emotional or psychological response toward a particular idea or object.
The functions of art described above are not mutually exclusive, as many of them may overlap. For example, art for the purpose of entertainment may also seek to sell a product, i.e. the movie or video game.
Purpose of art
Art has had a great number of different functions throughout its history, making its purpose difficult to extract or quantify to any single concept. This does not imply that the purpose of Art is “vague”, but that it has had many unique, different, reasons for being created. Some of these functions of Art are provided in the following outline. The different purposes of art may be grouped according to those which are non-motivated, and those which are motivated (Levi-Strauss).
Non-motivated functions of art
The non-motivated purposes of art are those which are integral to being human, transcend the individual, or do not fulfill a specific external purpose. Aristotle has said, “Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature.” In this sense, Art, as creativity, is something which humans must do by their very nature (i.e. no other species creates art), and is therefore beyond utility.
1. Basic human instinct for harmony, balance, rhythm. Art at this level is not an action or an object, but an internal appreciation of balance and harmony (beauty), and therefore an aspect of being human beyond utility.
“Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature. Next, there is the instinct for ‘harmony’ and rhythm, meters being manifestly sections of rhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural gift developed by degrees their special aptitudes, till their rude improvisations gave birth to Poetry.” -Aristotle
2. Experience of the mysterious. Art provides us with a way to experience ourselves in relation to the universe. This experience may often come unmotivated, as we appreciate art, music or poetry.
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.” -Albert Einstein
3. Expression of the imagination. Art provide a means to express the imagination in non-grammatic ways that are not tied to the formality of spoken or written language. Unlike words, which come in sequences and each of which have a definite meaning, art provides a range of forms, symbols and ideas with meanings that are maleable.
“Jupiter’s eagle [as an example of art] is not, like logical (aesthetic) attributes of an object, the concept of the sublimity and majesty of creation, but rather something else – something that gives the imagination an incentive to spread its flight over a whole host of kindred representations that provoke more thought than admits of expression in a concept determined by words. They furnish an aesthetic idea, which serves the above rational idea as a substitute for logical presentation, but with the proper function, however, of animating the mind by opening out for it a prospect into a field of kindred representations stretching beyond its ken.” -Immanuel Kant
4. Universal communication. Art allows the individual to express things toward the world as a whole. Earth artists often create art in remote locations that will never be experienced by another person. The practice of placing a cairn, or pile of stones at the top of a mountain, is an example. (Note: This need not suggest a particular view of God, or religion.) Art created in this way is a form of communication between the individual and the world as a whole.
5. Ritualistic and symbolic functions. In many cultures, art is used in rituals, performances and dances as a decoration or symbol. While these often have no specific utilitarian (motivated) purpose, anthropologists know that they often serve a purpose at the level of meaning within a particular culture. This meaning is not furnished by any one individual, but is often the result of many generations of change, and of a cosmological relationship within the culture.
“Most scholars who deal with rock paintings or objects recovered from prehistoric contexts that cannot be explained in utilitarian terms and are thus categorized as decorative, ritual or symbolic, are aware of the trap posed by the term ‘art’.” -Silva Tomaskova
Motivated functions of art
The purposes of art which are motivated refer to intentional, conscious actions on the part of the artists or creator. These may be to bring about political change, to comment on an aspect of society, to convey a specific emotion or mood, to address personal psychology, to illustrate another discipline, to (with commercial arts) to sell a product, or simply as a form of communication.
1. Communication. Art, at its simplest, is a form of communication. As most forms of communication have an intent or goal directed toward another individual, this is a motivated purpose. Illustrative arts, such as scientific illustration, are a form of art as communication. Maps are another example. However, the content need not be scientific. Emotions, moods and feelings are also communicated through art.
“[Art is a set of] artefacts or images with symbolic meanings as a means of communication.” -Steve Mithen
2. Art as entertainment. Art may seek to bring about a particular emotion or mood, for the purpose of relaxing or entertaining the viewer. This is often the function of the art industries of Motion Pictures and Video Games.
3. The Avante-Garde. Art for political change. One of the defining functions of early twentieth century art has been to use visual images to bring about political change. The art movements which had this goal – Dadaism, Surrealism, Russian Constructivism, and Abstract Expressionism, among others – are collectively referred to as the avante-garde arts.
“By contrast, the realistic attitude, inspired by positivism, from Saint Thomas Aquinas to Anatole France, clearly seems to me to be hostile to any intellectual or moral advancement. I loathe it, for it is made up of mediocrity, hate, and dull conceit. It is this attitude which today gives birth to these ridiculous books, these insulting plays. It constantly feeds on and derives strength from the newspapers and stultifies both science and art by assiduously flattering the lowest of tastes; clarity bordering on stupidity, a dog’s life.” -Andre Breton (Surrealism)
4. Art for psychological and healing purposes. Art is also used by art therapists, psychotherapists and clinical psychologists as art therapy. The Diagnostic Drawing Series, for example, is used to determine the personality and emotional functioning of a patient. The end product is not the principal goal in this case, but rather a process of healing, through creative acts, is sought. The resultant piece of artwork may also offer insight into the troubles experienced by the subject and may suggest suitable approaches to be used in more conventional forms of psychiatric therapy.
5. Art for social inquiry, subversion and/or anarchy. While similar to art for political change, subversive or deconstructivist art may seek to question aspects of society without any specific political goal. In this case, the function of art may be simply to criticize some aspect of society. Graffiti art and other types of street art are graphics and images that are spray-painted or stencilled on publicly viewable walls, buildings, buses, trains, and bridges, usually without permission. Certain art forms, such as graffiti, may also be illegal when they break laws (in this case vandalism).
6. Art for propaganda, or commercialism. Art is often utilized as a form of propaganda, and thus can be used to subtly influence popular conceptions or mood. In a similar way, art which seeks to sell a product also influences mood and emotion. In both cases, the purpose of art here is to subtly manipulate the viewer into a particular emotional or psychological response toward a particular idea or object.
The functions of art described above are not mutually exclusive, as many of them may overlap. For example, art for the purpose of entertainment may also seek to sell a product, i.e. the movie or video game.
RB, what do you think causes SWGs to be more boring? (Maybe I missed it.) You think they tend to be less well-read, right? Is this the reason you would give?
RB, what do you think causes SWGs to be more boring? (Maybe I missed it.) You think they tend to be less well-read, right? Is this the reason you would give?
ross,
change my mind. i’m here.
change my mind that everything is not an individual interpretation.
i’m sure something from the “giles” repository will suffice.
it has been a whopping 10-15 minutes since his name has been brought up.
ross,
change my mind. i’m here.
change my mind that everything is not an individual interpretation.
i’m sure something from the “giles” repository will suffice.
it has been a whopping 10-15 minutes since his name has been brought up.
heck let’s not dwell on the large. let’s talk about specifics.
reading & writing.
how are they not individual acts?
heck let’s not dwell on the large. let’s talk about specifics.
reading & writing.
how are they not individual acts?
My privileged position? I am hispanic. Hell, my parents are immigrants. But maybe you missed that the last time I said it. The analogy is only as ridiculous as your claim, which is based on the quality of writing. And the last time I looked, descriptives such as sex and race didn’t fall into that equation.
The worst part is that you are being outrageous not to exhibit a problem in human society, but that you are being outrageous as some political statement that rings so false, so hollow that I cannot even begin to explain.
You are the kind of guy who takes a class on feminism or sexuality because you know there will be women on whom you can prey. “Oh no, man… that is totally not true.” Well, prove it. Because according to you and your feminist and PC friends, anything you do or say can be traced to some kind of deep-seated subconscious idea that has been programmed into you by an evil, straight, white, patriarchy.
Kind of funny since you are white, straight, and male. Oh, but you’re from New Zealand, so that makes it different?
How the hell do you know what I read? What I’m defensive about is your smugness. “All writing is political.” Okay, Baraka… and why do you, as a representative of the status quo hiding behind “Marxist theory”, have ANY reason to approach all things politically?
My privileged position? I am hispanic. Hell, my parents are immigrants. But maybe you missed that the last time I said it. The analogy is only as ridiculous as your claim, which is based on the quality of writing. And the last time I looked, descriptives such as sex and race didn’t fall into that equation.
The worst part is that you are being outrageous not to exhibit a problem in human society, but that you are being outrageous as some political statement that rings so false, so hollow that I cannot even begin to explain.
You are the kind of guy who takes a class on feminism or sexuality because you know there will be women on whom you can prey. “Oh no, man… that is totally not true.” Well, prove it. Because according to you and your feminist and PC friends, anything you do or say can be traced to some kind of deep-seated subconscious idea that has been programmed into you by an evil, straight, white, patriarchy.
Kind of funny since you are white, straight, and male. Oh, but you’re from New Zealand, so that makes it different?
How the hell do you know what I read? What I’m defensive about is your smugness. “All writing is political.” Okay, Baraka… and why do you, as a representative of the status quo hiding behind “Marxist theory”, have ANY reason to approach all things politically?
http://jamesbond.ugo.com/images/allies/m-judi-dench.jpg
http://jamesbond.ugo.com/images/allies/m-judi-dench.jpg
And BY THE WAY, my analogy was related to your statement about the WRITING of Straight White Males. NOT your prescriptive suggestion.
And BY THE WAY, my analogy was related to your statement about the WRITING of Straight White Males. NOT your prescriptive suggestion.
Sorry I missed that you’re Hispanic. Nevertheless, you’re defending a privleged position. And once again, though you accuse me of it, there is nothing there about writing, just ad hominem attacks. I stand by my critique of your analogy. And if my standpoint “rings so hollow [you] can’t even begin to explain” I find that very telling (as do I the personal attacks). I have never taken a class on gender studies – I can into such through friends, activism, and my personal experience in not being hetronormative (which has no bearing on my hetrosexuality – I can’t keep track of the amount of times I’ve been gay-bashed).
I never said being from New Zealand makes me different. I will say that Patriachy, and capitalism, hurt everybody.
Sorry I missed that you’re Hispanic. Nevertheless, you’re defending a privleged position. And once again, though you accuse me of it, there is nothing there about writing, just ad hominem attacks. I stand by my critique of your analogy. And if my standpoint “rings so hollow [you] can’t even begin to explain” I find that very telling (as do I the personal attacks). I have never taken a class on gender studies – I can into such through friends, activism, and my personal experience in not being hetronormative (which has no bearing on my hetrosexuality – I can’t keep track of the amount of times I’ve been gay-bashed).
I never said being from New Zealand makes me different. I will say that Patriachy, and capitalism, hurt everybody.
I dunno. Maybe it’s easier to get published? or a lack of desperation? it’s not a totalising experience, and maybe it just comes from me identifying with marginal positions.
I dunno. Maybe it’s easier to get published? or a lack of desperation? it’s not a totalising experience, and maybe it just comes from me identifying with marginal positions.
because they operate in a larger context. You’re not the only one involved in producing the book, nor are you the only one reading it. furthermore, they create communal activities, such as this blog, around them.
Simply the existence of plurals such as “readers” and “writers”, both of wich are routinely modified by adjectives the connotations of which can be either empowering or perjorative.
as for individual interpretation, the entire depository of literary criticism should suffice.
and I’ve only mentioned Deleuze once in this thread……
Maybe we need a bit more……
because they operate in a larger context. You’re not the only one involved in producing the book, nor are you the only one reading it. furthermore, they create communal activities, such as this blog, around them.
Simply the existence of plurals such as “readers” and “writers”, both of wich are routinely modified by adjectives the connotations of which can be either empowering or perjorative.
as for individual interpretation, the entire depository of literary criticism should suffice.
and I’ve only mentioned Deleuze once in this thread……
Maybe we need a bit more……
Whether I am defending a privileged position or not is neither here nor there because I don’t give a shit about your politics.
Your claim:
“Straight-White-Guy poets tend to be boring as fuck”
Ryan asked, because you didn’t articulate your claim (a failing of communication, which, to me is more important in art than being politically conscious):
“Are you talking about their work?”
Your response:
“Their work”
This is a qualitative assessment. Someone’s race, gender, or sexual preference has nothing to do with the quality of what they produce. It might have something to do with the content and context, but that is no reason to make such a claim. You have stated your preference, which is fine, but to start blathering on about politics and writing and how they are inextricably linked is just you using a political stance to defend your inane comment.
Oooh! Ad hominem! Muy interesante! I think I’ve outlined fairly succinctly my objection to your bloviated nonsense. I don’t need the ad hominems.
“I will say that Patriachy, and capitalism, hurt everybody”
And? I can walk onto any left leaning campus or independent bookstore and find tons of people who agree with that. That doesn’t say shit about shit. And neither does quoting Guy Debord or Lydia Lunch or anyone else. I mean, white male/white female right there. Real stretch, amigo!
Whether I am defending a privileged position or not is neither here nor there because I don’t give a shit about your politics.
Your claim:
“Straight-White-Guy poets tend to be boring as fuck”
Ryan asked, because you didn’t articulate your claim (a failing of communication, which, to me is more important in art than being politically conscious):
“Are you talking about their work?”
Your response:
“Their work”
This is a qualitative assessment. Someone’s race, gender, or sexual preference has nothing to do with the quality of what they produce. It might have something to do with the content and context, but that is no reason to make such a claim. You have stated your preference, which is fine, but to start blathering on about politics and writing and how they are inextricably linked is just you using a political stance to defend your inane comment.
Oooh! Ad hominem! Muy interesante! I think I’ve outlined fairly succinctly my objection to your bloviated nonsense. I don’t need the ad hominems.
“I will say that Patriachy, and capitalism, hurt everybody”
And? I can walk onto any left leaning campus or independent bookstore and find tons of people who agree with that. That doesn’t say shit about shit. And neither does quoting Guy Debord or Lydia Lunch or anyone else. I mean, white male/white female right there. Real stretch, amigo!
Ross, how a book becomes published is irrelevant to reading and writing.
Write back when you want to actually try to persuade me.
Ross, how a book becomes published is irrelevant to reading and writing.
Write back when you want to actually try to persuade me.
my comment (in context) preceeded by “It’s funny how the vast majority of my favorite poets are either female, gay, from ethnic minorities, non-anglophone or some combination of these”, and then that statement was a reversal of Ron Siliman’s statement in 1991 that that “[W]omen, people of color, sexual minorities, the entire
spectrum of the ‘marginal’ – have a manifest political need to have their stories told [so that] their writing […] often appears much more conventional”.
And I disagree that “Someone’s race, gender, or sexual preference has nothing to do with the quality of what they produce” – it informs the qualities – and the way that it is read (hence all the comments here about women writers being judged as “women writers”.
And as I believe in the politicality of everything, of course I’m going to link it to a wider political situation – I believe that is an ethical imperative.
You made personal attacks. I said they were such (ad hominem). That has been the greater part of your objections – you think I’m a dick and disagree. If you want to keep abusing me, fine – or we could actually talk about the issues.
my comment (in context) preceeded by “It’s funny how the vast majority of my favorite poets are either female, gay, from ethnic minorities, non-anglophone or some combination of these”, and then that statement was a reversal of Ron Siliman’s statement in 1991 that that “[W]omen, people of color, sexual minorities, the entire
spectrum of the ‘marginal’ – have a manifest political need to have their stories told [so that] their writing […] often appears much more conventional”.
And I disagree that “Someone’s race, gender, or sexual preference has nothing to do with the quality of what they produce” – it informs the qualities – and the way that it is read (hence all the comments here about women writers being judged as “women writers”.
And as I believe in the politicality of everything, of course I’m going to link it to a wider political situation – I believe that is an ethical imperative.
You made personal attacks. I said they were such (ad hominem). That has been the greater part of your objections – you think I’m a dick and disagree. If you want to keep abusing me, fine – or we could actually talk about the issues.
I’m not sure what I meant instead of experience there – maybe statement?
I’m not sure what I meant instead of experience there – maybe statement?
Ross: Race, gender, sexual preference don’t inform quality. They might inform content and reader perception (“that way that it is read”), but I seriously challenge you to prove that anybody is a better writer *only* because they are a minority.
“And regarding bills in congress, without some kind of outside intervention/pressure, not a hell of a lot gets done that way (except for continual shoring up of the status quo).”
Well that makes the term status quo rather meaningless, does it not? Or does it make it subjective/contextual? Because outside groups represent various political sides. Not just one singular group raging against a single legislative position. In America, liberals want this, conservatives want that, and the intervention and pressure comes from both sides of the aisle.
For example: liberals uphold and continue to fight the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. In this context, the right for a woman to chose to abort a pregnancy is the status quo. The conservatives would LOOOVE to change that. They are trying to destroy the status quo.
So, would you argue that shoring up the status quo in this situation is a “bad thing?” I guess it depends on where your political ideology sits.
Ross: Race, gender, sexual preference don’t inform quality. They might inform content and reader perception (“that way that it is read”), but I seriously challenge you to prove that anybody is a better writer *only* because they are a minority.
“And regarding bills in congress, without some kind of outside intervention/pressure, not a hell of a lot gets done that way (except for continual shoring up of the status quo).”
Well that makes the term status quo rather meaningless, does it not? Or does it make it subjective/contextual? Because outside groups represent various political sides. Not just one singular group raging against a single legislative position. In America, liberals want this, conservatives want that, and the intervention and pressure comes from both sides of the aisle.
For example: liberals uphold and continue to fight the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. In this context, the right for a woman to chose to abort a pregnancy is the status quo. The conservatives would LOOOVE to change that. They are trying to destroy the status quo.
So, would you argue that shoring up the status quo in this situation is a “bad thing?” I guess it depends on where your political ideology sits.
I never said “anybody is a better writer *only* because they are a minority”. though, as there is no abstract set of ultimates that describe quality, and what it is that makes writing good, so I firmly believe that these cultural issues have a definate bearing on the reception of work.
I never said “anybody is a better writer *only* because they are a minority”. though, as there is no abstract set of ultimates that describe quality, and what it is that makes writing good, so I firmly believe that these cultural issues have a definate bearing on the reception of work.
You can guess where mine is.
And in America both sides are pretty similar – The Democrats would be a centre-right party in most other countries. In terms of social justice (issues like abortion excepted), the status quo in the US seems, from an outsider’s point of view, to be pretty safe and steady.
Look at healthcare reform for example. It’s taken since Clinton was presedent for there to be any real possibility of change there, and what is proposed keeps getting watered down and watered down – despite the US being the only (I think) country in the OECD to not have universal healthcare. The US is also the only OECD state to still execute prisoners.
You can guess where mine is.
And in America both sides are pretty similar – The Democrats would be a centre-right party in most other countries. In terms of social justice (issues like abortion excepted), the status quo in the US seems, from an outsider’s point of view, to be pretty safe and steady.
Look at healthcare reform for example. It’s taken since Clinton was presedent for there to be any real possibility of change there, and what is proposed keeps getting watered down and watered down – despite the US being the only (I think) country in the OECD to not have universal healthcare. The US is also the only OECD state to still execute prisoners.
Well hey, we agree on something.
Well hey, we agree on something.
president
president
@ ross, i dont buy the context argument. what is determining, within the holistic sphere of context surrounding every activity that stretches to the edge of the universe, where to cease considering it? of course you can stretch it out to the point that everything written affects the world and is therefore political, but why not stretch it to the edge of the universe so that the world becomes meaningless. i think in the end we opt to stop considering context when its practical to.
@ ross, i dont buy the context argument. what is determining, within the holistic sphere of context surrounding every activity that stretches to the edge of the universe, where to cease considering it? of course you can stretch it out to the point that everything written affects the world and is therefore political, but why not stretch it to the edge of the universe so that the world becomes meaningless. i think in the end we opt to stop considering context when its practical to.
*grin*
*grin*
I totally disagree. But regardless, this is a community of readers, no?
I totally disagree. But regardless, this is a community of readers, no?
start with the madness trilogy. good stuff.
start with the madness trilogy. good stuff.
your generalizing at best, more like grasping. read more books and examine your subjectivity (interesting to whom?). besides langpo is like 30 years old.
your generalizing at best, more like grasping. read more books and examine your subjectivity (interesting to whom?). besides langpo is like 30 years old.
Ross, I don’t think you’re a dick, and my “attacks” were in the context of how I perceived your political agenda. If your idea of social upheaval is to build one group up by tearing another down, I’m not down with that. It’s not constructive, and it only harms and illegitimizes your goal.
As per Silliman, I read the quote in a larger context, and I don’t know… I don’t see what’s so dismissive about it. Seems to me he’s pointing out a difference in the audience perception of these writers vs. the SWMs. Besides, what’s different about him using the word APPEARS vs. you using the word TENDS in your claim?
I think what L. said is close to the truth:
“Sorry, it reads less like any kind of serious statement and more like a knee jerk attempt to show how down with the people you are or something.”
And that’s fine. I can be rah rah viva la raza myself, but if I start saying that white people shouldn’t be proud of their heritage, I am cheapening my own. And I guess that’s where I take issue. When you make such a claim, you bring down yourself and anyone like you.
Ethical imperatives, like political beliefs, are subjective. If I have the political belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, then it is an ethical imperative for me to extend that belief to everyone, regardless of socio-political standing. Regardless of history. My ethics would demand that I NEVER compromise that belief by making exceptions.
A belief in the “politicality” of everything and an ethical adherence to it makes no sense to me. Politicality is too broad for me to attach ethics to it. But I can attach ethics to certain issues that are informed by my personal politics. That makes sense to me.
In my mind, George S. Schuyler is no less significant than James Baldwin or Richard Wright or Ralph Ellison simply because his politics were on the opposite end of the spectrum. The same with a writer like Ayn Rand versus some of my favorite soviet writers like Kollontai or Akhmatova.
Regarding your disagreement with me on quality, you make a point. There are qualities, as in, the content in someone’s writing, that can inform the reader of the writer’s race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. This could also apply to the reader. I believe Amiri Baraka said something along those lines. There’s truth to that. But if your political/ethical imperative is to try to inform everyone of the political injustice around them, it’d be easier to do that without the artifice of making a claim with no substance simply to grab attention.
Ross, I don’t think you’re a dick, and my “attacks” were in the context of how I perceived your political agenda. If your idea of social upheaval is to build one group up by tearing another down, I’m not down with that. It’s not constructive, and it only harms and illegitimizes your goal.
As per Silliman, I read the quote in a larger context, and I don’t know… I don’t see what’s so dismissive about it. Seems to me he’s pointing out a difference in the audience perception of these writers vs. the SWMs. Besides, what’s different about him using the word APPEARS vs. you using the word TENDS in your claim?
I think what L. said is close to the truth:
“Sorry, it reads less like any kind of serious statement and more like a knee jerk attempt to show how down with the people you are or something.”
And that’s fine. I can be rah rah viva la raza myself, but if I start saying that white people shouldn’t be proud of their heritage, I am cheapening my own. And I guess that’s where I take issue. When you make such a claim, you bring down yourself and anyone like you.
Ethical imperatives, like political beliefs, are subjective. If I have the political belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, then it is an ethical imperative for me to extend that belief to everyone, regardless of socio-political standing. Regardless of history. My ethics would demand that I NEVER compromise that belief by making exceptions.
A belief in the “politicality” of everything and an ethical adherence to it makes no sense to me. Politicality is too broad for me to attach ethics to it. But I can attach ethics to certain issues that are informed by my personal politics. That makes sense to me.
In my mind, George S. Schuyler is no less significant than James Baldwin or Richard Wright or Ralph Ellison simply because his politics were on the opposite end of the spectrum. The same with a writer like Ayn Rand versus some of my favorite soviet writers like Kollontai or Akhmatova.
Regarding your disagreement with me on quality, you make a point. There are qualities, as in, the content in someone’s writing, that can inform the reader of the writer’s race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. This could also apply to the reader. I believe Amiri Baraka said something along those lines. There’s truth to that. But if your political/ethical imperative is to try to inform everyone of the political injustice around them, it’d be easier to do that without the artifice of making a claim with no substance simply to grab attention.
that’s an assumption.
i was once told “what the fuck is a community.”
can you answer that question?
that’s an assumption.
i was once told “what the fuck is a community.”
can you answer that question?
[…] reader’s conception of the topic. So it is with Roxane Gay’s article entitled “I Am Not Sorry I Have A Vagina” at HTMLGIANT. Gay’s article is a reaction to Claire Messud’s article at […]