April 16th, 2010 / 1:47 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
I’ve been guest editing Adam’s Everyday Genius this month. Today is Sean Kilpatrick’s poem ‘fistfucking rules’ which again reiterates why he is one of the realest mothers in this. Also this month new work from Laura Carter, Mark Leidner, Rav Grewal-Kök, Kimberly King Parsons, Robert Kloss, Donora Hillard, Travis Nichols, Kevin O’Cuinn, Cameron Pierce, Kate Zambreno, and Amy McDaniel, and the month is only halfsies. Hit it, please!
it is definitely a free country, and nothing is truly better than anything else except in a highly subjective way, but i’m a little baffled as to why people (apparently including blake) are into what i would describe as “bodily-functioncore” poetry/prose? other possible genre titles could be “gloomdoompoop-core” or “subverseshit-core.” don’t get it. not interested in censoring it or hurting anyone’s feelings, just confused as to why this seems to be something reputable people really dig, a lot. might mean i’m lame. not sure.
just kind of feels like every line is saying “fuck yeh, and fuck yeh, and fuck yeh, and fuck yeh, and also, fuck yeh…” is it mean week? srry yallz. i still love yall, dont hate me. just confused.
it is definitely a free country, and nothing is truly better than anything else except in a highly subjective way, but i’m a little baffled as to why people (apparently including blake) are into what i would describe as “bodily-functioncore” poetry/prose? other possible genre titles could be “gloomdoompoop-core” or “subverseshit-core.” don’t get it. not interested in censoring it or hurting anyone’s feelings, just confused as to why this seems to be something reputable people really dig, a lot. might mean i’m lame. not sure.
just kind of feels like every line is saying “fuck yeh, and fuck yeh, and fuck yeh, and fuck yeh, and also, fuck yeh…” is it mean week? srry yallz. i still love yall, dont hate me. just confused.
i mean, i definitely get that we shouldn’t run away from the fact that we all shit and we’re all gonna die and other things, but like, i don’t know, it just reads like a stream of almost-artfully combined, random, unpleasant-sounding or almost-obscene words.
i mean, i definitely get that we shouldn’t run away from the fact that we all shit and we’re all gonna die and other things, but like, i don’t know, it just reads like a stream of almost-artfully combined, random, unpleasant-sounding or almost-obscene words.
but actually, maybe that *is* keepin’ it real, what i just described in a negative fashion. “genuinely having second thoughts, though wouldn’t really ‘seek out’ this poem ‘of my own accord.'” guess i am hating, but my heart feels free of bitterness, honestly.
but actually, maybe that *is* keepin’ it real, what i just described in a negative fashion. “genuinely having second thoughts, though wouldn’t really ‘seek out’ this poem ‘of my own accord.'” guess i am hating, but my heart feels free of bitterness, honestly.
“minor, irrelevant, unsolicited ‘mini-epiphanies, or something’ at HTMLGIANT.com. check it (no, don’t check it)”
“minor, irrelevant, unsolicited ‘mini-epiphanies, or something’ at HTMLGIANT.com. check it (no, don’t check it)”
I have to admit that Kilpatrick poem made me uncomfortable. Which is good.
But I wonder if I didn’t know who he was, or who you are (Blake), what would I think? It’s not even mom-concern this time. It’s cool people-concern too.
Will smart people get it? Is there something to get? Should we refer to The Story of the Eye?
What helps?
I think the fact that it made me uncomfortable and I still thought it was good is the thing. Kilpatrick has no seems. That helps. Good helps.
I have to admit that Kilpatrick poem made me uncomfortable. Which is good.
But I wonder if I didn’t know who he was, or who you are (Blake), what would I think? It’s not even mom-concern this time. It’s cool people-concern too.
Will smart people get it? Is there something to get? Should we refer to The Story of the Eye?
What helps?
I think the fact that it made me uncomfortable and I still thought it was good is the thing. Kilpatrick has no seems. That helps. Good helps.
By “seems” I mean “seams.”
And sorry, stephen — this wasn’t a response to your reasonable question, and it was fun to read your thought processes. We just cross-posted. I was working it out same as you.
But my first response reading it was, “Dang, he’s messing things up and it’s kind of beautiful.” It’s the profanity, yes, but all the other “rules” or “techniques” of poetry still apply. To me, it’s not the shock value that is the real value.
Who cares about shock value? Shock value is precisely not caring.
By “seems” I mean “seams.”
And sorry, stephen — this wasn’t a response to your reasonable question, and it was fun to read your thought processes. We just cross-posted. I was working it out same as you.
But my first response reading it was, “Dang, he’s messing things up and it’s kind of beautiful.” It’s the profanity, yes, but all the other “rules” or “techniques” of poetry still apply. To me, it’s not the shock value that is the real value.
Who cares about shock value? Shock value is precisely not caring.
well, i think my distaste was prose-based, actually word-based. the words he’s fetishizing or utilizing here are words he digs or is interested in, and those words are ones i dislike and want to ‘stay away from.’ so, the problem is definitely with me, not with kilpatrick or with butler, on second thought. it’s probably related to me being uncomfortable (ha!) with death and the human body in its icky particularities (broke into cold sweat once in Bio class). i do enjoy work by beckett and joyce that certainly mentions death and shit and other things, but a steady stream of to-me “icky words” is just unpleasant for me. so yeah, that’s my weakness as a reader, or something.
my piece for Pop Serial faces death square in the face, interestingly (to me, perhaps to me only); i actually started to feel slightly disturbed while composing the “death section.”
well, i think my distaste was prose-based, actually word-based. the words he’s fetishizing or utilizing here are words he digs or is interested in, and those words are ones i dislike and want to ‘stay away from.’ so, the problem is definitely with me, not with kilpatrick or with butler, on second thought. it’s probably related to me being uncomfortable (ha!) with death and the human body in its icky particularities (broke into cold sweat once in Bio class). i do enjoy work by beckett and joyce that certainly mentions death and shit and other things, but a steady stream of to-me “icky words” is just unpleasant for me. so yeah, that’s my weakness as a reader, or something.
my piece for Pop Serial faces death square in the face, interestingly (to me, perhaps to me only); i actually started to feel slightly disturbed while composing the “death section.”
yeah, i just ‘jumped in anyway,’ though you weren’t referring to me, i know. thanks for your thoughts. i’m beginning to think the ‘poetic logic,’ such as it may exist in this poem, line by line, phrase by phrase, is reminiscent of stuff from the modernist era, only with harsher or more obscene or more topical words added to the mix. the other difference is that shock value or randomness seems intended, whereas i feel like a joyce or an eliot or whoever didn’t tend to be ‘shocking’ or ‘obscene’ for its own sake.
yeah, i just ‘jumped in anyway,’ though you weren’t referring to me, i know. thanks for your thoughts. i’m beginning to think the ‘poetic logic,’ such as it may exist in this poem, line by line, phrase by phrase, is reminiscent of stuff from the modernist era, only with harsher or more obscene or more topical words added to the mix. the other difference is that shock value or randomness seems intended, whereas i feel like a joyce or an eliot or whoever didn’t tend to be ‘shocking’ or ‘obscene’ for its own sake.
that is, the poem has its own random-or-maybe-not-random logic
that is, the poem has its own random-or-maybe-not-random logic
i don’t find the subjects shocking. i think those things are patent at this point. the logic and language of the poem i find moving. clearly shock is no longer shock, it’s like candy paint on a nice whip. it’s more an object than a fetish. in fact i think sean is one of few i’ve found who seems to defetishize fetish things in his language by making them the grain rather than the bump. i find it calming, and pleasurable. it’s not for everyone, but that’s the part of the fun in putting words in air. self fascism.
i don’t find the subjects shocking. i think those things are patent at this point. the logic and language of the poem i find moving. clearly shock is no longer shock, it’s like candy paint on a nice whip. it’s more an object than a fetish. in fact i think sean is one of few i’ve found who seems to defetishize fetish things in his language by making them the grain rather than the bump. i find it calming, and pleasurable. it’s not for everyone, but that’s the part of the fun in putting words in air. self fascism.
thanks, blake.
thanks, blake.
I think Kilpatrick has a great sense of language, and I am all about the subject matter, but his particular approach is honestly an awful reading experience for me. I don’t want to judge it, really, I just can’t read him without hating myself and everyone involved a little.
I think Kilpatrick has a great sense of language, and I am all about the subject matter, but his particular approach is honestly an awful reading experience for me. I don’t want to judge it, really, I just can’t read him without hating myself and everyone involved a little.
what is it about the particular approach?
what is it about the particular approach?
I am really curious why someone would choose this poem fistfucking rules over other poems. I suppose this isn’t really a question and there isn’t any answers, but I find the taste of some people bewildering to say the least.
I am really curious why someone would choose this poem fistfucking rules over other poems. I suppose this isn’t really a question and there isn’t any answers, but I find the taste of some people bewildering to say the least.
what “is” the subject matter, exactly? to me, it seems like language, nothing more or less, which is not a good or bad thing, in my eyes
what “is” the subject matter, exactly? to me, it seems like language, nothing more or less, which is not a good or bad thing, in my eyes
it seems logical that blake would like this poem, as his own work seems to have similar language choices and other things.
it seems logical that blake would like this poem, as his own work seems to have similar language choices and other things.
This isn’t shocking. When I refresh my CNN browser I get shocked.
But….
I like how he (Kilpatrick) takes words we use (or don’t want to use) in one context and then shows us these same words in this poem, juxtaposed against others. It’s like he makes a balloon animal out of a jar of glass.
This poem is sort of a machine.
This isn’t shocking. When I refresh my CNN browser I get shocked.
But….
I like how he (Kilpatrick) takes words we use (or don’t want to use) in one context and then shows us these same words in this poem, juxtaposed against others. It’s like he makes a balloon animal out of a jar of glass.
This poem is sort of a machine.
balloon animal out of a jar of glass is absolutely perfect.
balloon animal out of a jar of glass is absolutely perfect.
It feels misogynistic to me. Not as much this one as others I’ve read by him. Which isn’t helpful from a writing perspective or even a reading perspective, I don’t think, because it sort of collapses, but still, this is how I feel when I read it. I think it gets to issues or personal experiences I have that are very upsetting to me specifically, it may not be what other people see. But if the subject of these poems is really strictly the endless degradation of women/a woman, as it often seems, I’m not sure that’s worth writing or reading. Which is again a sort of collapsing way of thinking about it, but sometimes I need to collapse.
It feels misogynistic to me. Not as much this one as others I’ve read by him. Which isn’t helpful from a writing perspective or even a reading perspective, I don’t think, because it sort of collapses, but still, this is how I feel when I read it. I think it gets to issues or personal experiences I have that are very upsetting to me specifically, it may not be what other people see. But if the subject of these poems is really strictly the endless degradation of women/a woman, as it often seems, I’m not sure that’s worth writing or reading. Which is again a sort of collapsing way of thinking about it, but sometimes I need to collapse.
I think perhaps I’ve become inured and I certainly find the images in this poem somewhat grotesque but is it shocking? I find it more numbing than shocking.
I think perhaps I’ve become inured and I certainly find the images in this poem somewhat grotesque but is it shocking? I find it more numbing than shocking.
it’s “like how an iron cross looks neat.”
it’s “like how an iron cross looks neat.”
i can’t imagine finding this poem moving, for any reason, just to be honest. but that’s why we’re all different!
i can’t imagine finding this poem moving, for any reason, just to be honest. but that’s why we’re all different!
isn’t that kind of lazy of you though? to make the stop at the idea of misogyny?
i actually find sometimes sean’s shit upsetting too, but because of how neutral or soft he makes these words seem, in the layering, and in that comes a kind of pleasure. like smiling after you’ve been hit. after you’ve been hit a lot.
but yes, collapse. this is post collapse work. there is a lot to admire that can be easily mistaken for something else entirely. it’s a challenge, in a way, and one that kilpatrick himself is not making, and is.
isn’t that kind of lazy of you though? to make the stop at the idea of misogyny?
i actually find sometimes sean’s shit upsetting too, but because of how neutral or soft he makes these words seem, in the layering, and in that comes a kind of pleasure. like smiling after you’ve been hit. after you’ve been hit a lot.
but yes, collapse. this is post collapse work. there is a lot to admire that can be easily mistaken for something else entirely. it’s a challenge, in a way, and one that kilpatrick himself is not making, and is.
the numb of it is what scares me the most.
It is scary, isn’t it?
the numb of it is what scares me the most.
It is scary, isn’t it?
i wonder if any of this is generational or something… or maybe just a sensibility thing… probably that… i feel like parts of DFW and Lynch, for example, “resonate, or something else” with “this kind of a thing.” and those parts are probably the reasons i’m not a bigger fan of those 3 artists than i probably otherwise would be (DFW does less of this, overall, and thus i dig him a lot more than lynch—-it’s strange, i want to love lynch (he meditates, that seems promising to me) but i only rarely do). i think if i believed that the “trippy” or “horror movie” or “fleshy, icky, strange,” not sure how to describe them, if those parts seemed (to me, of course) at all related to the artist’s personal emotions or experience or dreams, they would “mean more” to me. as it is, it just feels like a moody kid fort-building in the backyard. which has its place, obviously.
i wonder if any of this is generational or something… or maybe just a sensibility thing… probably that… i feel like parts of DFW and Lynch, for example, “resonate, or something else” with “this kind of a thing.” and those parts are probably the reasons i’m not a bigger fan of those 3 artists than i probably otherwise would be (DFW does less of this, overall, and thus i dig him a lot more than lynch—-it’s strange, i want to love lynch (he meditates, that seems promising to me) but i only rarely do). i think if i believed that the “trippy” or “horror movie” or “fleshy, icky, strange,” not sure how to describe them, if those parts seemed (to me, of course) at all related to the artist’s personal emotions or experience or dreams, they would “mean more” to me. as it is, it just feels like a moody kid fort-building in the backyard. which has its place, obviously.
yeah, i didn’t read it as misogynistic, really, but everyone’s going to read it differently, obviously. just felt like either the writer’s reaction to his own lines was like “fuck yeh, dude,” or else (more likely) “strange apathy, or something.”
yeah, i didn’t read it as misogynistic, really, but everyone’s going to read it differently, obviously. just felt like either the writer’s reaction to his own lines was like “fuck yeh, dude,” or else (more likely) “strange apathy, or something.”
@ “smiling after you’ve been hit”
That makes sense, in a way. And just because I have DFW on the brain, like many ppl around these parts, I think there’s some of that in his work too, the grotesque made palpable, almost. And I do think it invites the reader to almost physically feel something, but unfortunately (only in my opinion), the feeling in question is nausea. what i want to feel is love.
@ “smiling after you’ve been hit”
That makes sense, in a way. And just because I have DFW on the brain, like many ppl around these parts, I think there’s some of that in his work too, the grotesque made palpable, almost. And I do think it invites the reader to almost physically feel something, but unfortunately (only in my opinion), the feeling in question is nausea. what i want to feel is love.
well i mean i guess bataille’s poems in divine filth or artaud’s later poems would be as well (misogynist)…and that’s a point to be made, yes, fetishizing the woman’s body. but i think it also discounts what’s really interesting about bataille and artaud – the ecstasy, the grotesqueness, the spectacle of the body.
the fistfucking poem seems very in the tradition of ar-toe. a sort of discomfort or cruelty. i like “she commits burlesque diarrheas under the guise of pregnancy.” and this poem to me is committing a sort of burlesque of body acts and fluids.
well i mean i guess bataille’s poems in divine filth or artaud’s later poems would be as well (misogynist)…and that’s a point to be made, yes, fetishizing the woman’s body. but i think it also discounts what’s really interesting about bataille and artaud – the ecstasy, the grotesqueness, the spectacle of the body.
the fistfucking poem seems very in the tradition of ar-toe. a sort of discomfort or cruelty. i like “she commits burlesque diarrheas under the guise of pregnancy.” and this poem to me is committing a sort of burlesque of body acts and fluids.
sean is the last person on earth who is apathetic to his language. i’ve never seen someone revise as much as he does, and obsessively. that comes out of me knowing him personally, but i also felt that before i met him. i think part of the magic of his writing for me is how fluid and ‘fuck yeh’ the sentences end up coming off under all the work that is behind them. makes it seem casual, in a way, under the extreme weight he is actually putting on them. and then again, they don’t seem to me casual at all. those weird pauses and juxtapositions might be somebody’s accident, in some works, but there are not accidental here. sean is one of few people who can make me laugh by feeling surprised simply out of the way things fall out of the sentences. like turning a corner in a footrace and running into a pudding wall. the pudding is still warm, but chilling. what’s in the pudding?
sean is the last person on earth who is apathetic to his language. i’ve never seen someone revise as much as he does, and obsessively. that comes out of me knowing him personally, but i also felt that before i met him. i think part of the magic of his writing for me is how fluid and ‘fuck yeh’ the sentences end up coming off under all the work that is behind them. makes it seem casual, in a way, under the extreme weight he is actually putting on them. and then again, they don’t seem to me casual at all. those weird pauses and juxtapositions might be somebody’s accident, in some works, but there are not accidental here. sean is one of few people who can make me laugh by feeling surprised simply out of the way things fall out of the sentences. like turning a corner in a footrace and running into a pudding wall. the pudding is still warm, but chilling. what’s in the pudding?
“moody kid fort-building” isn’t fair to lynch or dfw, obviously. never mind. let’s put it this way: i suspect lynch and dfw have loved things or people, but it rarely comes through in their work. why the hell not? i wish it did. doesn’t mean they have to give up the disquieting, strange, disturbing stuff. there just seems to be a void in their work where felt love could be (the end of “straight story” aside, which was an atypical work, to say the least, and “everything is green” and “good people”—shit, just refuted my own statement—sorry for being “that thinking out loud guy,” yallz).
“moody kid fort-building” isn’t fair to lynch or dfw, obviously. never mind. let’s put it this way: i suspect lynch and dfw have loved things or people, but it rarely comes through in their work. why the hell not? i wish it did. doesn’t mean they have to give up the disquieting, strange, disturbing stuff. there just seems to be a void in their work where felt love could be (the end of “straight story” aside, which was an atypical work, to say the least, and “everything is green” and “good people”—shit, just refuted my own statement—sorry for being “that thinking out loud guy,” yallz).
I guess all the cool kids are doing a sort of emotion response to the piece.
I guess all the cool kids are doing a sort of emotion response to the piece.
i like it because i am secretly goth and really into horror movies and visceral body things and i always like it when said gothic horror shit is within a very “art” or “literary” frame. taste yall.
i like it because i am secretly goth and really into horror movies and visceral body things and i always like it when said gothic horror shit is within a very “art” or “literary” frame. taste yall.
i kind of don’t think anything’s in the pudding, to be honest with you. that isn’t good or bad, even if it’s true, just a thing. but yeah, OK, so maybe he’s thinking “fuck yeh” then. seems “more masculine than i like” in a writer, but that is an odd and ‘wrong maybe in several ways’ statement. i like the “softies.”
i kind of don’t think anything’s in the pudding, to be honest with you. that isn’t good or bad, even if it’s true, just a thing. but yeah, OK, so maybe he’s thinking “fuck yeh” then. seems “more masculine than i like” in a writer, but that is an odd and ‘wrong maybe in several ways’ statement. i like the “softies.”
i mean in general (i.e. lara glenum i guess is specifically what i am thinking of, is that what you mean?), i am not sure what i think about this specific poem yet
i think there’s something really valid in making a reader feel nauseous, uncomfortable. as opposed to love. at least the work is making you physically feel something, it’s jarring something.
i mean in general (i.e. lara glenum i guess is specifically what i am thinking of, is that what you mean?), i am not sure what i think about this specific poem yet
i think there’s something really valid in making a reader feel nauseous, uncomfortable. as opposed to love. at least the work is making you physically feel something, it’s jarring something.
Well, I mean, it is and isn’t lazy of me. Once you reach a certain number of poems about women being violently fucked in disgusting ways you have to take responsibility for how that’s going to play out in readers. I can make it about other things if I want, and it is about other things, but I would selfishly prefer to read other things from him, for whatever that’s worth — stuff that doesn’t encourage that feeling, and that way of looking at women.
Well, I mean, it is and isn’t lazy of me. Once you reach a certain number of poems about women being violently fucked in disgusting ways you have to take responsibility for how that’s going to play out in readers. I can make it about other things if I want, and it is about other things, but I would selfishly prefer to read other things from him, for whatever that’s worth — stuff that doesn’t encourage that feeling, and that way of looking at women.
way off topic: yall see this interview with Lorin Stein, new editor of Paris Review [via Tao]?: http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/blog/james-mcgirk/qa-lorin-stein-editor
makes me a little excited or at least somewhat optimistic about his tenure. sample quote:
“LS: On Easter I signed up my first short story for the Paris Review. It’s by a young woman you’ve never heard of named April Ayers Lawson, and it’s an astonishment. All sex and brains and feeling. And it’s funny too. A minute before I read the story, I had no idea that such a thing existed. If I’d had a theme in mind for the issue, this story would almost certainly not have matched that theme. This is a long way of saying I’m looking for the best of the best, period—except I don’t really believe in The Best. There are many excellent stories that don’t interest me. I have started many novels by John Updike and never finished one, not even “Rabbit, Run”. I don’t enjoy Henry James the way I used to. I love Dickens more and more. The novel I enjoyed most last year was “Rebecca”. Once you are dealing with a certain level of goodness or greatness, it’s no use ranking one author above another. Different authors do different things. (The same is true of magazines.)”
interesting. i especially appreciate the part about The Best and Updike.
way off topic: yall see this interview with Lorin Stein, new editor of Paris Review [via Tao]?: http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/blog/james-mcgirk/qa-lorin-stein-editor
makes me a little excited or at least somewhat optimistic about his tenure. sample quote:
“LS: On Easter I signed up my first short story for the Paris Review. It’s by a young woman you’ve never heard of named April Ayers Lawson, and it’s an astonishment. All sex and brains and feeling. And it’s funny too. A minute before I read the story, I had no idea that such a thing existed. If I’d had a theme in mind for the issue, this story would almost certainly not have matched that theme. This is a long way of saying I’m looking for the best of the best, period—except I don’t really believe in The Best. There are many excellent stories that don’t interest me. I have started many novels by John Updike and never finished one, not even “Rabbit, Run”. I don’t enjoy Henry James the way I used to. I love Dickens more and more. The novel I enjoyed most last year was “Rebecca”. Once you are dealing with a certain level of goodness or greatness, it’s no use ranking one author above another. Different authors do different things. (The same is true of magazines.)”
interesting. i especially appreciate the part about The Best and Updike.
Kate — absolutely nausea, discomfort. I am all about those things.
I am not about hate, so much. At times it feels like hate.
Kate — absolutely nausea, discomfort. I am all about those things.
I am not about hate, so much. At times it feels like hate.
kinda feeling this, which is where the bataille/artaud connection fails to work for me, but i guess i should read it like four more times before i decide that for sure
kinda feeling this, which is where the bataille/artaud connection fails to work for me, but i guess i should read it like four more times before i decide that for sure
man, if you are the “uncool kid” in a pack of lit nerds, that is some rough shit, bro. sorry, bro.
emotions are valid. everything is valid. i’d say emotions are more valid than “airy pontificating,” for example.
man, if you are the “uncool kid” in a pack of lit nerds, that is some rough shit, bro. sorry, bro.
emotions are valid. everything is valid. i’d say emotions are more valid than “airy pontificating,” for example.
kate— i agree with you that it’s valid. i mentioned somewhere else here that DFW does that to a reader sometimes. “the depressed person,” for example, or some of the “brief interviews.” parts of IJ.
kate— i agree with you that it’s valid. i mentioned somewhere else here that DFW does that to a reader sometimes. “the depressed person,” for example, or some of the “brief interviews.” parts of IJ.
magick mike – just clicked on your blog! and saw your hermann nitsch (love) the actionists who committed seeming senseless acts disgusting acts about the body.
this poem seems to be in the tradition of bataille/artaud…but whether it’s successful or not is of course another issue. i read the poem as a string of words making these surprising disgusting connections. which i liked, the visceralness of it.
mike – i hear you. i think you make a really good point. (although personally a lot of my writing comes from hate! maybe that’s easier being a woman? i don’t know. i think of william gass: i write because i hate. hard. i think a lot of interesting writing comes from the unrepressed.). but this poem didn’t bother me as being misogynistic, or was really about something else, the language, the body, and i found it interesting.
magick mike – just clicked on your blog! and saw your hermann nitsch (love) the actionists who committed seeming senseless acts disgusting acts about the body.
this poem seems to be in the tradition of bataille/artaud…but whether it’s successful or not is of course another issue. i read the poem as a string of words making these surprising disgusting connections. which i liked, the visceralness of it.
mike – i hear you. i think you make a really good point. (although personally a lot of my writing comes from hate! maybe that’s easier being a woman? i don’t know. i think of william gass: i write because i hate. hard. i think a lot of interesting writing comes from the unrepressed.). but this poem didn’t bother me as being misogynistic, or was really about something else, the language, the body, and i found it interesting.
I like words, I like when they sound good, I like when they flow, and I like when they blow my mind. I totally like the visceral.
I think you’ve hit upon my reaction to it when you say, re: the actionists, “who committed seeming senseless acts disgusting acts.” when it comes to bataille, artaud, the actionists, all artists who are like so incredibly important to me, i really know enough about their context that i understand why they are doing what they are doing, and because i know this context (which often translates to content) the words achieve more to me than aesthetics, and for me that is far more powerful.
i mean, there is arguably a bataillean sense of excess about it even if it is devoid of content, which arguably creates a content for the lack of content, but in that regard i thinks something like jon leon’s poems work a lot better. they are more casually excessive without the disruption– and despite the fact that i generally have a preference for fractured, heterogeneous forms/sentences, there is more of an atmosphere inside the excess, a causal space? i don’t get that here.
i think what throws me off here is the command and the “i” in the middle, which I can kind of feel other mike’s concern here, the reading as misogynistic.
i realize that on the level of this sentence alone it is still abstracted, there is not a direct command coming from someone hierarchically “above” the “sobject” of the poem, but the following line
sort of enforces that connection. if she doesn’t do this, i will do this. and this establishes a relation of power that does seem kind of hateful. there is of course an excess of the “i” in artaud/bataille/actionist work, but i’ve never felt this command of power. the women that artaud abuses textually are generally women he has created within the text (his five daughters in some of his later work), meaning they are part of himself of course, so he is rejecting these parts of himself (that’s a simplistic reading of course, attempting brevity at the moment, almost, i guess). and after four readings i still can’t get anywhere within this poem other than the language. so i don’t know.
(also, hey, i follow your blog in google reader, i like it)
I like words, I like when they sound good, I like when they flow, and I like when they blow my mind. I totally like the visceral.
I think you’ve hit upon my reaction to it when you say, re: the actionists, “who committed seeming senseless acts disgusting acts.” when it comes to bataille, artaud, the actionists, all artists who are like so incredibly important to me, i really know enough about their context that i understand why they are doing what they are doing, and because i know this context (which often translates to content) the words achieve more to me than aesthetics, and for me that is far more powerful.
i mean, there is arguably a bataillean sense of excess about it even if it is devoid of content, which arguably creates a content for the lack of content, but in that regard i thinks something like jon leon’s poems work a lot better. they are more casually excessive without the disruption– and despite the fact that i generally have a preference for fractured, heterogeneous forms/sentences, there is more of an atmosphere inside the excess, a causal space? i don’t get that here.
i think what throws me off here is the command and the “i” in the middle, which I can kind of feel other mike’s concern here, the reading as misogynistic.
i realize that on the level of this sentence alone it is still abstracted, there is not a direct command coming from someone hierarchically “above” the “sobject” of the poem, but the following line
sort of enforces that connection. if she doesn’t do this, i will do this. and this establishes a relation of power that does seem kind of hateful. there is of course an excess of the “i” in artaud/bataille/actionist work, but i’ve never felt this command of power. the women that artaud abuses textually are generally women he has created within the text (his five daughters in some of his later work), meaning they are part of himself of course, so he is rejecting these parts of himself (that’s a simplistic reading of course, attempting brevity at the moment, almost, i guess). and after four readings i still can’t get anywhere within this poem other than the language. so i don’t know.
(also, hey, i follow your blog in google reader, i like it)
what does “this kind of thing” accomplish? or if it doesn’t accomplish anything, or of course in a way no text accomplishes anything, per se, then what is it? it just “is” post-bateillean, content-less “burlesque of body acts and fluids”????? um…. hurray?
@Kate: “i write because i hate” william gass/”unrepressed”/”maybe that’s easier being a woman”
Whoa….not sure where to start…. might just not saying anything… yep, not saying anything… other than, that’s weak shit, william gass. rainer maria rilke goddamn for sure didn’t write because he hated, and you’ve had his cock in your mouth (as I’m sure you’d be wont to ohsofilthily describe it) for decades.
what does “this kind of thing” accomplish? or if it doesn’t accomplish anything, or of course in a way no text accomplishes anything, per se, then what is it? it just “is” post-bateillean, content-less “burlesque of body acts and fluids”????? um…. hurray?
@Kate: “i write because i hate” william gass/”unrepressed”/”maybe that’s easier being a woman”
Whoa….not sure where to start…. might just not saying anything… yep, not saying anything… other than, that’s weak shit, william gass. rainer maria rilke goddamn for sure didn’t write because he hated, and you’ve had his cock in your mouth (as I’m sure you’d be wont to ohsofilthily describe it) for decades.
a hateful person is repressed by hate. a hateful person, a hateful writer is not anywhere near as smart as he thinks he is. wisdom transcends hate.
a hateful person is repressed by hate. a hateful person, a hateful writer is not anywhere near as smart as he thinks he is. wisdom transcends hate.
magick mike you’ve given me stuff to chew over, definitely. and i like jon leon’s work as well. but i think at least in bataille’s prose, which i know better than his poetry, there is certainly relations of power with a first person male narrator (blue of noon, story of the eye). i am not saying the relation of power isn’t hateful in the fistfucking poem, just that i like the unrepressed nature of the poem.
with artaud’s little daughters, that’s very interesting – but maybe i’m being totally dense – how are the female figures in this fistfucking poem not created within the text? i don’t really see the difference i guess, it’s still violent female imagery, which I’m not having a problem with.
i’m not terribly concerned with content, always. maybe that’s it.
and also i think i should add i don’t think this poem’s like the second coming but i found it interesting, and i liked the aesthetic, the tradition.
magick mike you’ve given me stuff to chew over, definitely. and i like jon leon’s work as well. but i think at least in bataille’s prose, which i know better than his poetry, there is certainly relations of power with a first person male narrator (blue of noon, story of the eye). i am not saying the relation of power isn’t hateful in the fistfucking poem, just that i like the unrepressed nature of the poem.
with artaud’s little daughters, that’s very interesting – but maybe i’m being totally dense – how are the female figures in this fistfucking poem not created within the text? i don’t really see the difference i guess, it’s still violent female imagery, which I’m not having a problem with.
i’m not terribly concerned with content, always. maybe that’s it.
and also i think i should add i don’t think this poem’s like the second coming but i found it interesting, and i liked the aesthetic, the tradition.
stephen – writing from the hate, or unrepressed, isn’t the same as writing from bigotry or directly instigating violence. think of the vienna group, thomas bernhard, elfriede jelinek. they write from absolute bile. maybe to each his/her own. but have you read notebooks of malte laurids brigge, speaking of rilke? that book, at least the first book of two, is absolutely seething writing from a place of alienation.
stephen – writing from the hate, or unrepressed, isn’t the same as writing from bigotry or directly instigating violence. think of the vienna group, thomas bernhard, elfriede jelinek. they write from absolute bile. maybe to each his/her own. but have you read notebooks of malte laurids brigge, speaking of rilke? that book, at least the first book of two, is absolutely seething writing from a place of alienation.
of course i’ve read notebooks, with gass’ introduction. rilke himself said, quite accurately, that he sounds an entire chord, from the most miserable, angry despair to ecstasy, joy, and that’s what meaningful to me, is the whole chord, not just self-flagellation and filth fetishization. This quote from “Notebooks” paints a very different view of women than what may be propagated in a kilpatrick poem:
“Is it possible that we know nothing about young girls who are nevertheless living? Is it possible that we say “women”, “children”, “boys”, not suspecting that these words have long since had no plural, but only countless singulars? Yes, it is possible.”
Checkmate.
we probably don’t disagree or have quite as different viewpoints as it may seem. it all depends on defining terms and having more context. unrepressed can be something i’m very into, depending on what we’re talking about. was just unloading on gass, because i think it’s annoying that he’s an amazing prose writer and yet he insists on being a grouch and having fuddy-duddy ideas about prose and other things. nonetheless, i appreciate much of his writing and his essays. peace
of course i’ve read notebooks, with gass’ introduction. rilke himself said, quite accurately, that he sounds an entire chord, from the most miserable, angry despair to ecstasy, joy, and that’s what meaningful to me, is the whole chord, not just self-flagellation and filth fetishization. This quote from “Notebooks” paints a very different view of women than what may be propagated in a kilpatrick poem:
“Is it possible that we know nothing about young girls who are nevertheless living? Is it possible that we say “women”, “children”, “boys”, not suspecting that these words have long since had no plural, but only countless singulars? Yes, it is possible.”
Checkmate.
we probably don’t disagree or have quite as different viewpoints as it may seem. it all depends on defining terms and having more context. unrepressed can be something i’m very into, depending on what we’re talking about. was just unloading on gass, because i think it’s annoying that he’s an amazing prose writer and yet he insists on being a grouch and having fuddy-duddy ideas about prose and other things. nonetheless, i appreciate much of his writing and his essays. peace
yes we probably don’t have that many differences of opinion on the subject, it’s true, arguments can get murky on comment streams.
i do think though there’s a difference between being a grouch and rallying against the fascism of a state, as jelinek/bernhard do for me. i’m only really into gass’ essays (on being blue, etc.)
rilke’s treatment of women, however much i LOVE notebooks, is not spotless. the whole thing about pregnant women with death in their bellies (an image very rabelais/grotesque/the pregnant senile hag), and then all the stuff in book two about young girls at the tapesty museums poised with a pen starting to draw some silly little flower or animal. but i love love the book, nevertheless.
just caught your clarification of it being the first book that is “seething” and alienated. agreed. but the second book is there for a reason. and rilke doesn’t write “she commits burlesque diarrheas under the guise of pregnancy.” i don’t know; i guess i want kilpatrick to write “fistfucking rules, book 2.” hehe… obviously he can do whatever he wants and my opinion is irrelevant. i just think it’s quite possible that there are real-life echoes to what people write.
yes we probably don’t have that many differences of opinion on the subject, it’s true, arguments can get murky on comment streams.
i do think though there’s a difference between being a grouch and rallying against the fascism of a state, as jelinek/bernhard do for me. i’m only really into gass’ essays (on being blue, etc.)
rilke’s treatment of women, however much i LOVE notebooks, is not spotless. the whole thing about pregnant women with death in their bellies (an image very rabelais/grotesque/the pregnant senile hag), and then all the stuff in book two about young girls at the tapesty museums poised with a pen starting to draw some silly little flower or animal. but i love love the book, nevertheless.
just caught your clarification of it being the first book that is “seething” and alienated. agreed. but the second book is there for a reason. and rilke doesn’t write “she commits burlesque diarrheas under the guise of pregnancy.” i don’t know; i guess i want kilpatrick to write “fistfucking rules, book 2.” hehe… obviously he can do whatever he wants and my opinion is irrelevant. i just think it’s quite possible that there are real-life echoes to what people write.
i don’t know, i feel censor-y saying that last bit. i retract it. who cares whatever. i just wish people would open their hearts on the page and stop frontin’ or something.
i don’t know, i feel censor-y saying that last bit. i retract it. who cares whatever. i just wish people would open their hearts on the page and stop frontin’ or something.
if one (kilpatrick, whoever) is feeling angry, why not write something direct, why not write something like “yes, i’m lonely. wanna die. if i ain’t dead already, girl, you know the reason why.” that moves me more than “tell babygirl to suck her own swastika tattoos” (which is so absurd as to almost kinda be funny, though i dunno what he intends).
if one (kilpatrick, whoever) is feeling angry, why not write something direct, why not write something like “yes, i’m lonely. wanna die. if i ain’t dead already, girl, you know the reason why.” that moves me more than “tell babygirl to suck her own swastika tattoos” (which is so absurd as to almost kinda be funny, though i dunno what he intends).
I don’t like the poem, but liking it or not liking it is not the invitation here.
The “numb,” though, that’s certainly in there. It is scary. The numb of the thoroughly debased. It’s on the same number line as the scores of rapes in Book IV of 2666. While the language and grammar isn’t that of straight reporting, the effect is similar. The language is leveraged as rubber hose, as binding, as rape.
The poem won’t unlock neatly like a puzzle box, but if you refuse to let the grotesque drive you away (i.e. if you’re willing to put aside a visceral response), what’s available to work with is interesting.
But it’s not easy. No winking flirt about tying a poem to a chair here. If you want to spend time with this poem, you’re going to have to be a vivisectionist.
There’s ample scary fascism under it all, as if you’ve got the great great grandson of Plath’s anonymous Daddy (cue: line 1) writing back to that girl who said “daddy, daddy, you bastard I’m through.” And, pardon the French, the response is, “No, bitch, you’re not.”
You have your Jew and iron cross and your swastika tattoo– persecution, permanence, ownership, disfigurement, corruption, the withering of sustenance, menstruation and no release from death.
I don’t have the time to get into the connotations of fistfucking, America, misogyny as a reaction to fears of latent homosexuality, but the upshot is this: This is not a poem where the room makes a little “oohm” groan at the end, and Robert Bly never says, “Let’s hear that line one more time.” It’s asking you to do work. It’s four minutes of “Bishop, CA” by Xiu Xiu, not four minutes of The New Pornographers.
And look what it is making. People thinking about poetry.
I don’t like the poem, but liking it or not liking it is not the invitation here.
The “numb,” though, that’s certainly in there. It is scary. The numb of the thoroughly debased. It’s on the same number line as the scores of rapes in Book IV of 2666. While the language and grammar isn’t that of straight reporting, the effect is similar. The language is leveraged as rubber hose, as binding, as rape.
The poem won’t unlock neatly like a puzzle box, but if you refuse to let the grotesque drive you away (i.e. if you’re willing to put aside a visceral response), what’s available to work with is interesting.
But it’s not easy. No winking flirt about tying a poem to a chair here. If you want to spend time with this poem, you’re going to have to be a vivisectionist.
There’s ample scary fascism under it all, as if you’ve got the great great grandson of Plath’s anonymous Daddy (cue: line 1) writing back to that girl who said “daddy, daddy, you bastard I’m through.” And, pardon the French, the response is, “No, bitch, you’re not.”
You have your Jew and iron cross and your swastika tattoo– persecution, permanence, ownership, disfigurement, corruption, the withering of sustenance, menstruation and no release from death.
I don’t have the time to get into the connotations of fistfucking, America, misogyny as a reaction to fears of latent homosexuality, but the upshot is this: This is not a poem where the room makes a little “oohm” groan at the end, and Robert Bly never says, “Let’s hear that line one more time.” It’s asking you to do work. It’s four minutes of “Bishop, CA” by Xiu Xiu, not four minutes of The New Pornographers.
And look what it is making. People thinking about poetry.
you write ‘i’m lonely’ if that’s what moves you.
‘i’m lonely’ does not move me.
you write ‘i’m lonely’ if that’s what moves you.
‘i’m lonely’ does not move me.
thanks, pontius. still don’t find it convincing or scary. 2666’s “the part about the crimes” is much more convincing and affecting, in my opinion, not least because it is based on real events, but also because it doesn’t dress up the grotesque in poetry. “the part about the crimes” seems to be intended as an elegy in the name of dehumanized women everywhere, as opposed to, whatever this poem is.
this is a great comment. thanks, pontius.
thanks, pontius. still don’t find it convincing or scary. 2666’s “the part about the crimes” is much more convincing and affecting, in my opinion, not least because it is based on real events, but also because it doesn’t dress up the grotesque in poetry. “the part about the crimes” seems to be intended as an elegy in the name of dehumanized women everywhere, as opposed to, whatever this poem is.
this is a great comment. thanks, pontius.
point taken.
point taken.
we likely don’t have the same conception of “moving.” no worries
we likely don’t have the same conception of “moving.” no worries
2. Exciting movement of the mind or feelings; adapted to move the sympathies, passions, or affections; touching; pathetic; as, a moving appeal.
Interesting. Well, I was not aware of the “exciting movement of the MIND” part. for sure, juxtapositions of swastikas and feces and whatnot will excite SOME kind of movement of the mind more so than “i’m lonely.” i’m more familiar with the “adapted to move the sympathies, passions, or affections; touching” part. i do like my mind to be expanded too.
2. Exciting movement of the mind or feelings; adapted to move the sympathies, passions, or affections; touching; pathetic; as, a moving appeal.
Interesting. Well, I was not aware of the “exciting movement of the MIND” part. for sure, juxtapositions of swastikas and feces and whatnot will excite SOME kind of movement of the mind more so than “i’m lonely.” i’m more familiar with the “adapted to move the sympathies, passions, or affections; touching” part. i do like my mind to be expanded too.
Why is the breakdown in the conception of what moving is and not what is moving? I mean, that’s possible. It’s interesting, like the Kantian question of do I like the taste of salt more than you, or does salt taste different to me than it does to you.
Why is the breakdown in the conception of what moving is and not what is moving? I mean, that’s possible. It’s interesting, like the Kantian question of do I like the taste of salt more than you, or does salt taste different to me than it does to you.
can one have a girlfriend and be in love with her whilst writing things like:
“she remembers cum by phone menstruates her initials
shaved beef like small god arithmetic an extenuating trimester
she commits burlesque diarrheas under the guise of pregnancy”
probably being annoying. sorry yall. chacun ses gouts, and all that (should have stopped before i started).
can one have a girlfriend and be in love with her whilst writing things like:
“she remembers cum by phone menstruates her initials
shaved beef like small god arithmetic an extenuating trimester
she commits burlesque diarrheas under the guise of pregnancy”
probably being annoying. sorry yall. chacun ses gouts, and all that (should have stopped before i started).
Word on that “secretly goth” shit. I read TS Eliot’s “The Hollow Men” the other day and I thought “this is so metal.” Consider two stanzas by Eliot:
1. “The eyes are not here//There are no eyes here//In this valley of dying stars//In this hollow valley//This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms.”
2.”Sightless, unless//The eyes reappear//As the perpetual star//Multifoliate rose//Of death’s twilight kingdom//The hope only//Of empty men.”
Compare to Varathron’s “There is No God”: “Through the ancient books//Of the lost kingdoms//Through the golden book of the dead//Through the obscure sight of hecate//The insuperable goddess.”
Compare to The Suicide File’s “Twilight”: “Tonight I saw two eyes staring down at me//in this valley of ashes//and I realized what a grotesque thing a rose is.”
When doing research for this comment, I found a song by Rotting Christ called “Thine Is The Kingdom” which uses the Eliot poem in its entirety for the lyrics. I also found a song by Hellenthon called “Of Hollow Men” which interpolates text from the Eliot poem and elaborates on it.
Conclusion: TS Eliot was proto-metal.
Word on that “secretly goth” shit. I read TS Eliot’s “The Hollow Men” the other day and I thought “this is so metal.” Consider two stanzas by Eliot:
1. “The eyes are not here//There are no eyes here//In this valley of dying stars//In this hollow valley//This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms.”
2.”Sightless, unless//The eyes reappear//As the perpetual star//Multifoliate rose//Of death’s twilight kingdom//The hope only//Of empty men.”
Compare to Varathron’s “There is No God”: “Through the ancient books//Of the lost kingdoms//Through the golden book of the dead//Through the obscure sight of hecate//The insuperable goddess.”
Compare to The Suicide File’s “Twilight”: “Tonight I saw two eyes staring down at me//in this valley of ashes//and I realized what a grotesque thing a rose is.”
When doing research for this comment, I found a song by Rotting Christ called “Thine Is The Kingdom” which uses the Eliot poem in its entirety for the lyrics. I also found a song by Hellenthon called “Of Hollow Men” which interpolates text from the Eliot poem and elaborates on it.
Conclusion: TS Eliot was proto-metal.
i’ll admit, adam r, you lost me a bit there.
i’ll admit, adam r, you lost me a bit there.
well right,i mean, in bataille’s prose (such as the examples you’ve cited), there seems to be more going on within that power relationship. in bataille’s fiction the female characters involved in the violence have a voice, and more often than not their own autonomy (though you can of course argue that bataille is the only voice in the text, so it is bataille expressing his power over his text woman, etc), but bataille is writing towards the limits of the impossible, and in his fictional work he is aiming for the impossible with narrative: his women are delirious during the violence, they are laughing along with the protagonists, and the sexual economy on display is used beyond visceral aesthetics, it’s used towards the impossible. the actionists were also after the unrepressed, a freedom, but their desire for the unrepressed was political, post-world war II (especially with Muehl who was in the army and totally fucked by it), and theory’s derived from reading freud and (to some extent) wilhelm reich. the unrepression demonstrated in actions is towards freedom, but the position of the fistfuck poem is, what, unrepressed from a concern libido? do we even know if this is the author’s sexual fantasy? if it is i can spot more use-value in it, and i mean i think it “works” for me better than way, but i mean that shouldn’t affect the text itself.
with artaud’s little daughters, that’s very interesting – but maybe i’m being totally dense – how are the female figures in this fistfucking poem not created within the text? i don’t really see the difference i guess, it’s still violent female imagery, which I’m not having a problem with.
when i say artaud is “creating” his little daughters, he is doing so in the way similar to, say, roger laporte (sorry he’s on my mind today via dennis cooper) or the tel quel group before them were (and it’s no mistake that artaud was very important for these writers), artaud is saying, this is the text, i am writing this text because i cannot escape from my body, i have tried magic, i will now say that this text is magic, so he says, in the poem, i will make my daughters, i will do this and this and this to my daughters, but there’s no confusion that this is no an abstracted image of ‘women’ as a whole, or whatever, there’s never any confusion this is not a rage against the female sex, this is not even a sexual phantasy, this is him attacking, he is attacking the world by attacking himself? in the fistfuck poem there are just women existing in the space of the poem, and these women may or may not be women-as-women, there is no signifier of what they are. there is no “i will write these women and i will do terrible things to them.” that’s no necessarily a fault, but if there is any intention they are to be read that way (and i don’t really think they are, since the piece seems very much about the words and the visceral). of course, you know, if a text is so exclusive we can’t do antyhing with it, but what can we do here? we can apply anyreading we want and with language being language for language then it’s not even worth talking about it the way which we are? who knows.
lots of people around here say that, and i almost don’t believe it. it pisses me off in the same way minimal art manifestos in the 60s do: art cannot mean nothing. it is always within a context that will read it and make it it’s own. this poem is clearly doing something, so to say the content is unimportant is to, i don’t know, just intentionally limiting yourself. i don’t see how that’s pleasurable? i think maybe i lost my train of thought, but i’m just thinking out loud here anyway.
and on the same hand, i don’t think the poem is utterly terrible, but what i like most about is that this conversation is happening.
well right,i mean, in bataille’s prose (such as the examples you’ve cited), there seems to be more going on within that power relationship. in bataille’s fiction the female characters involved in the violence have a voice, and more often than not their own autonomy (though you can of course argue that bataille is the only voice in the text, so it is bataille expressing his power over his text woman, etc), but bataille is writing towards the limits of the impossible, and in his fictional work he is aiming for the impossible with narrative: his women are delirious during the violence, they are laughing along with the protagonists, and the sexual economy on display is used beyond visceral aesthetics, it’s used towards the impossible. the actionists were also after the unrepressed, a freedom, but their desire for the unrepressed was political, post-world war II (especially with Muehl who was in the army and totally fucked by it), and theory’s derived from reading freud and (to some extent) wilhelm reich. the unrepression demonstrated in actions is towards freedom, but the position of the fistfuck poem is, what, unrepressed from a concern libido? do we even know if this is the author’s sexual fantasy? if it is i can spot more use-value in it, and i mean i think it “works” for me better than way, but i mean that shouldn’t affect the text itself.
with artaud’s little daughters, that’s very interesting – but maybe i’m being totally dense – how are the female figures in this fistfucking poem not created within the text? i don’t really see the difference i guess, it’s still violent female imagery, which I’m not having a problem with.
when i say artaud is “creating” his little daughters, he is doing so in the way similar to, say, roger laporte (sorry he’s on my mind today via dennis cooper) or the tel quel group before them were (and it’s no mistake that artaud was very important for these writers), artaud is saying, this is the text, i am writing this text because i cannot escape from my body, i have tried magic, i will now say that this text is magic, so he says, in the poem, i will make my daughters, i will do this and this and this to my daughters, but there’s no confusion that this is no an abstracted image of ‘women’ as a whole, or whatever, there’s never any confusion this is not a rage against the female sex, this is not even a sexual phantasy, this is him attacking, he is attacking the world by attacking himself? in the fistfuck poem there are just women existing in the space of the poem, and these women may or may not be women-as-women, there is no signifier of what they are. there is no “i will write these women and i will do terrible things to them.” that’s no necessarily a fault, but if there is any intention they are to be read that way (and i don’t really think they are, since the piece seems very much about the words and the visceral). of course, you know, if a text is so exclusive we can’t do antyhing with it, but what can we do here? we can apply anyreading we want and with language being language for language then it’s not even worth talking about it the way which we are? who knows.
lots of people around here say that, and i almost don’t believe it. it pisses me off in the same way minimal art manifestos in the 60s do: art cannot mean nothing. it is always within a context that will read it and make it it’s own. this poem is clearly doing something, so to say the content is unimportant is to, i don’t know, just intentionally limiting yourself. i don’t see how that’s pleasurable? i think maybe i lost my train of thought, but i’m just thinking out loud here anyway.
and on the same hand, i don’t think the poem is utterly terrible, but what i like most about is that this conversation is happening.
I try to tell my gf not to suck her swastika tattoos too much. they’ll get hickies. As for rogue bowels, I met such a scoundrel the other day playing pool and he needed a dentist. And I know exactly what he means when he says little jewish dude in his poo. It is unnerving, but there’s medicine for it.
i thought the poem was interesting, engaging. i did keep wondering about the word “own” in “tell babygirl to suck her own swastika tattoos.” apparently she’s been sucking other people’s swastika tattoos and that’s just lame.
I try to tell my gf not to suck her swastika tattoos too much. they’ll get hickies. As for rogue bowels, I met such a scoundrel the other day playing pool and he needed a dentist. And I know exactly what he means when he says little jewish dude in his poo. It is unnerving, but there’s medicine for it.
i thought the poem was interesting, engaging. i did keep wondering about the word “own” in “tell babygirl to suck her own swastika tattoos.” apparently she’s been sucking other people’s swastika tattoos and that’s just lame.
I feel kind of bad about what I said here earlier now. Hope I wasn’t out of line. Hugs for everybody.
I feel kind of bad about what I said here earlier now. Hope I wasn’t out of line. Hugs for everybody.
comedy?
comedy?
i feel that way often, unfortunately. hugs back, mike.
i feel that way often, unfortunately. hugs back, mike.
well bad comedy, but of course. i wanted to point out that i thought parts of the poem were funny. intentionally so. i like the pontius’ comment a lot, but it’s very serious. and that’s fine, but i also thought the poem was pretty fun. “rogue bowel moves daddy’s cabana.” “take a manly squat.” “burlesque diarrheas under the guise of pregnancy.” i don’t know. i laughed, or smiled, to myself. but then i’m a pretty gross person and when i read fistfucking i figured the poem might get into some good puppetry imagery. that’s all.
well bad comedy, but of course. i wanted to point out that i thought parts of the poem were funny. intentionally so. i like the pontius’ comment a lot, but it’s very serious. and that’s fine, but i also thought the poem was pretty fun. “rogue bowel moves daddy’s cabana.” “take a manly squat.” “burlesque diarrheas under the guise of pregnancy.” i don’t know. i laughed, or smiled, to myself. but then i’m a pretty gross person and when i read fistfucking i figured the poem might get into some good puppetry imagery. that’s all.
no need to feeling bad yall. all words is words. it’s good to talk.
no need to feeling bad yall. all words is words. it’s good to talk.
point taken, alan. it can definitely be read as some kind of comedy in parts.
point taken, alan. it can definitely be read as some kind of comedy in parts.
Yeah. It’s so good when a spontaneous reading group breaks out. I would love to have my work tossed around like this. I hope you’re happy, Kilpatrick.
Yeah. It’s so good when a spontaneous reading group breaks out. I would love to have my work tossed around like this. I hope you’re happy, Kilpatrick.
oh, i meant “bad comedy” meaning my own silly comment there. the poem i think is working with humor in some curious and intelligent ways.
i picked up the good soldier at the used bookstore the other day (you rec’d it, yeah?).
oh, i meant “bad comedy” meaning my own silly comment there. the poem i think is working with humor in some curious and intelligent ways.
i picked up the good soldier at the used bookstore the other day (you rec’d it, yeah?).
magick mike – this is really interesting, really smart, i’m not sure i agree with you regarding artaud (who i love, but i wrestle with artaud, i wrestle with bataille, i wrestle with sade). an ambivalence towards the feminine can be read as misogyny, especially such an open horror/disgust of artaud being born out of the motherless cunt (of course this is him trying to get rid of his parentage). i am thinking about the little sisters, what they mean, how artaud uses them…we do know in real life artaud would stop speaking to his female friends once they got pregnant, so i don’t think artaud or bataille gets a pass in terms of their representations of the feminine. but i read bataille & artaud for the absolute ecstasy.
and stephen – yes i love book two of notebooks! book two is my favorite so many have disliked it, but i love the looking outside, the ecstasy, the being literally outside of oneself, one’s ego. but i don’t hope that for all writers, that sort of mystical transcendence. i don’t look for humanism in all of my literature. and i don’t ask that the artist is a nonreprehensible human being or a good boyfriend (i mean hey even rilke left poor clara right i dont’ think we can look at many genius writers as good boyfriends/partners this cannot be our way of reading them!)
magick mike – this is really interesting, really smart, i’m not sure i agree with you regarding artaud (who i love, but i wrestle with artaud, i wrestle with bataille, i wrestle with sade). an ambivalence towards the feminine can be read as misogyny, especially such an open horror/disgust of artaud being born out of the motherless cunt (of course this is him trying to get rid of his parentage). i am thinking about the little sisters, what they mean, how artaud uses them…we do know in real life artaud would stop speaking to his female friends once they got pregnant, so i don’t think artaud or bataille gets a pass in terms of their representations of the feminine. but i read bataille & artaud for the absolute ecstasy.
and stephen – yes i love book two of notebooks! book two is my favorite so many have disliked it, but i love the looking outside, the ecstasy, the being literally outside of oneself, one’s ego. but i don’t hope that for all writers, that sort of mystical transcendence. i don’t look for humanism in all of my literature. and i don’t ask that the artist is a nonreprehensible human being or a good boyfriend (i mean hey even rilke left poor clara right i dont’ think we can look at many genius writers as good boyfriends/partners this cannot be our way of reading them!)
I like it on account of how the words sound when he puts them together then substitutes them for ‘felch’ and/or ‘college’
(mostly sinsurr)
I like it on account of how the words sound when he puts them together then substitutes them for ‘felch’ and/or ‘college’
(mostly sinsurr)
‘everything is valid’
yeah how trite, how revolutionary, what an amazing way to nothing at all stephen.
good luck in making future decisions, if we ever meet i’ll give you a d6 or magic eight ball.
‘everything is valid’
yeah how trite, how revolutionary, what an amazing way to nothing at all stephen.
good luck in making future decisions, if we ever meet i’ll give you a d6 or magic eight ball.
@Pontius
yeah and Heraclitus scholars have said more with less, but at least he was short and having only fragments of his writing gave his incoherence some plausible deniability.
@Pontius
yeah and Heraclitus scholars have said more with less, but at least he was short and having only fragments of his writing gave his incoherence some plausible deniability.
dudes. that’s a poem.
dudes. that’s a poem.
well, i plan to be a mystical humanist writer and a good boyfriend :) to each their own!
well, i plan to be a mystical humanist writer and a good boyfriend :) to each their own!
oh right, yeah, cool man. i definitely appreciated it. and you were the one who recommended the other jean rhys book, “after leaving mr. mackenzie”? i picked that up at the used bookstore. just got done with “good morning, midnight.” incredible book.
oh right, yeah, cool man. i definitely appreciated it. and you were the one who recommended the other jean rhys book, “after leaving mr. mackenzie”? i picked that up at the used bookstore. just got done with “good morning, midnight.” incredible book.
as in, it’s a good poem, or as in, yall are talking about things other than the poem too much? not sure.
as in, it’s a good poem, or as in, yall are talking about things other than the poem too much? not sure.
The first three lines of this poem are pretty intriguing, and I got all excited because most the poetry posted here is trash. But then, of course, the rest of the poem utterly runs away from its poet. Yawn. For my money, stephen nailed it in his first post. From line 4 on the poem devolves into meaningless Fuck Yeah Fuck Yeah Fuck Yeah!!!
(And I say this as a huge fan of excrement/etc. in art.)
The first three lines of this poem are pretty intriguing, and I got all excited because most the poetry posted here is trash. But then, of course, the rest of the poem utterly runs away from its poet. Yawn. For my money, stephen nailed it in his first post. From line 4 on the poem devolves into meaningless Fuck Yeah Fuck Yeah Fuck Yeah!!!
(And I say this as a huge fan of excrement/etc. in art.)
Yeah, I think the nausea, the discomfort, the dark, dark humor in “the depressed person”, are all expressions of the horror of loss. What loss? Sad loss. Well, life included much loss, including ultimate loss. I think the nausea, discomfort etc are an expression of the sadness and horror of the loss of innocence that comes with realizing that one is a separate body that does “icky” things, has “icky” thoughts, and then dies.
Yeah, so I think we are talking about the loss of innocence here, which a writer can “look at” and express from many different angles, using greatly varying words.
I like the poem, but it makes me feel sad.
*includes, not included
Yeah, I think the nausea, the discomfort, the dark, dark humor in “the depressed person”, are all expressions of the horror of loss. What loss? Sad loss. Well, life included much loss, including ultimate loss. I think the nausea, discomfort etc are an expression of the sadness and horror of the loss of innocence that comes with realizing that one is a separate body that does “icky” things, has “icky” thoughts, and then dies.
Yeah, so I think we are talking about the loss of innocence here, which a writer can “look at” and express from many different angles, using greatly varying words.
I like the poem, but it makes me feel sad.
*includes, not included
I am disturbed and saddened by CNN, Fox, Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh ugliness etc etc etc.
Very sad to say, though, I am not “shocked”.
I am disturbed and saddened by CNN, Fox, Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh ugliness etc etc etc.
Very sad to say, though, I am not “shocked”.
HTML GIANT needs a good Rhys discussion one of these days.
HTML GIANT needs a good Rhys discussion one of these days.
speaking of rhys, i published a kate zambreno dialogue including jean rhys also at EG this month, it’s fantastic:
http://www.everyday-genius.com/2010/04/kate-zambreno.html
speaking of rhys, i published a kate zambreno dialogue including jean rhys also at EG this month, it’s fantastic:
http://www.everyday-genius.com/2010/04/kate-zambreno.html
Cool.
I’ll check it out.
Cool.
I’ll check it out.
before seeing blake’s comment i was just going to write that i’m absolutely obsessed with rhys. good morning midnight is the best but after leaving mr. mackenzie is so underrated i think.
before seeing blake’s comment i was just going to write that i’m absolutely obsessed with rhys. good morning midnight is the best but after leaving mr. mackenzie is so underrated i think.
cool, blake, thanks for letting us know.
cool, blake, thanks for letting us know.
that was ‘engaging’/’interesting’ to read. here’s looking at you, kate zambreno.
that was ‘engaging’/’interesting’ to read. here’s looking at you, kate zambreno.
snark attack! “these be bitter waters, cap’n”
snark attack! “these be bitter waters, cap’n”
existence itself is nothing, stevie boy. the way to nothing is already inside you.
existence itself is nothing, stevie boy. the way to nothing is already inside you.
oh shit, that kate zambreno dialogue is great. thanks blake. and stephen, yeah, i mentioned how much i like after leaving mr. mackenzie. i agree with kate that it’s underrated. starting the good soldier soon, but i’ve got a few to get through first (or “get through?” how like a job that sounds). anyway, yeah, i second a post on rhys.
oh shit, that kate zambreno dialogue is great. thanks blake. and stephen, yeah, i mentioned how much i like after leaving mr. mackenzie. i agree with kate that it’s underrated. starting the good soldier soon, but i’ve got a few to get through first (or “get through?” how like a job that sounds). anyway, yeah, i second a post on rhys.
good job sean. good job blake.
good job sean. good job blake.
stephen, earlier you said, “i’m a little baffled as to why people (apparently including blake) are into what i would describe as “bodily-functioncore” poetry/prose?”
i’ve actually been thinking about this lately, and i think it’s interesting to note that over the last twenty years or so there’s been a(n extensively discussed) trend of de-emphasizing facial features, to the point that ‘we’ are much more concerned with the other areas of the body and the bodily functions; functions that our society on the whole, for whatever reason, continues to fetishize despite which fact they are most definitely a part of our shared experience, and are perhaps more universal than any other aspect of our lives. in short, everybody poops, stephen. it’s only a fetish if you don’t believe it.
as blake said earlier, “in fact i think sean is one of few i’ve found who seems to defetishize fetish things in his language by making them the grain rather than the bump.”
anyway, i ask you this: what is literature doing if not making a pass at truth?
stephen, earlier you said, “i’m a little baffled as to why people (apparently including blake) are into what i would describe as “bodily-functioncore” poetry/prose?”
i’ve actually been thinking about this lately, and i think it’s interesting to note that over the last twenty years or so there’s been a(n extensively discussed) trend of de-emphasizing facial features, to the point that ‘we’ are much more concerned with the other areas of the body and the bodily functions; functions that our society on the whole, for whatever reason, continues to fetishize despite which fact they are most definitely a part of our shared experience, and are perhaps more universal than any other aspect of our lives. in short, everybody poops, stephen. it’s only a fetish if you don’t believe it.
as blake said earlier, “in fact i think sean is one of few i’ve found who seems to defetishize fetish things in his language by making them the grain rather than the bump.”
anyway, i ask you this: what is literature doing if not making a pass at truth?
thanks alan and stephen!
thanks alan and stephen!
hmm… i followed u there, reynard. your last question would seem a leap from the build-up, but on second thought i still follow u. i was certainly kind of being a jackass with the genre names, just out of idle confusion/annoyance/amusement re: this trend. to me, there is a possibility that some uses of this kind of “everybody poops” aesthetic or what-have-you (this sentence has great comedic potential), some uses might essentially lack the “everybody” part that makes it philosophical-ish or something, and just literally involves pooping on the page—-if that is like “everybody poops: the next generation in lit: ‘just’ pooping for truth,” then i guess, have fun with that, yall…
hmm… i followed u there, reynard. your last question would seem a leap from the build-up, but on second thought i still follow u. i was certainly kind of being a jackass with the genre names, just out of idle confusion/annoyance/amusement re: this trend. to me, there is a possibility that some uses of this kind of “everybody poops” aesthetic or what-have-you (this sentence has great comedic potential), some uses might essentially lack the “everybody” part that makes it philosophical-ish or something, and just literally involves pooping on the page—-if that is like “everybody poops: the next generation in lit: ‘just’ pooping for truth,” then i guess, have fun with that, yall…
you’re welcome, kate, thank you. this seems not really related, but have you read djuna barnes? i always recommend her to people, especially if they like modernism.
you’re welcome, kate, thank you. this seems not really related, but have you read djuna barnes? i always recommend her to people, especially if they like modernism.
I just liked “gangbang lullaby.” … should’ve expounded on that.
I just liked “gangbang lullaby.” … should’ve expounded on that.
omg are you guys going to totally hate me if i did not read all 100 comments but just the first SEVeral and have this to say (i am a poet) from blake “the logic and language of the poem i find moving.” YUP at some point it doesn’t matter what the poem is about, because the poem can be about itself and how it is working, like a person. a person isn’t ABOUT anything, or is about a lot of things, because they are living and that means…
but when it does mattter what a poem is about, sometimes it is better not to categorize it or say it has some core that matches up with the core of some other poem that is also about shitting or having your period. unh uh. like, i also like this poem by sean kilpatrick a whole lot and i have also read poems about the same subject matter where i’ve been totally disgusted and said something like oh you self-indulgent prick but nuh uh not this time. this poem is a body and it demonstrates how our thoughts move through our bodies because words are the blood of a poem. you can’t avoid this shit! our memories are of shitting and having our periods thank you!
omg are you guys going to totally hate me if i did not read all 100 comments but just the first SEVeral and have this to say (i am a poet) from blake “the logic and language of the poem i find moving.” YUP at some point it doesn’t matter what the poem is about, because the poem can be about itself and how it is working, like a person. a person isn’t ABOUT anything, or is about a lot of things, because they are living and that means…
but when it does mattter what a poem is about, sometimes it is better not to categorize it or say it has some core that matches up with the core of some other poem that is also about shitting or having your period. unh uh. like, i also like this poem by sean kilpatrick a whole lot and i have also read poems about the same subject matter where i’ve been totally disgusted and said something like oh you self-indulgent prick but nuh uh not this time. this poem is a body and it demonstrates how our thoughts move through our bodies because words are the blood of a poem. you can’t avoid this shit! our memories are of shitting and having our periods thank you!
i ecstatically adore djuna barnes
i ecstatically adore djuna barnes
[…] when Blake posted about that one poem he published on Everyday Genius, by Sean Kilpatrick, a really great dialogue I think came out of the debate (but I do think it didn’t get ugly because it didn’t deal specifically with a woman […]