| Author | Message | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 371 Registered: 05-2006 |
Prefatory Note: ~M~ has brought up an EXTREMELY important point. As you read this, think of instances in your writing career, where you've wanted to write about certain hot-button topics (or take unpopular points of view on these topics) -- and either you DID write about them, and got hammered, or you didn't write about them to avoid conflict -- or maybe you had an experience entirely off the continuum of getting whacked or chickening out. In any case, if you believe your experience might help flesh out or strengthen this essay by bringing in third-party evidence, please send it to me. Thanks. Things That Can't Be Said I. This is not a critique of the L.A. Times stylebook, not a foray into offensive language or the pathology of paper-thin skin, not a discussion of whether to call a particular minority Latinos or Hispanics or whether we must refer to dogs as Canine Americans. Neither is political correctness a term I wish to use, not because it misses the point, but because it's tired language: overused, much maligned, and connotatively scarred. What this essay is about is partially captured by the word censorship. But when we think of censorship, we often imagine something formal. A reporter writes a story about corruption on the local city council. The editor of the newspaper is good friends with these same officials – and puts the nix on the story. A TV news person discovers how a local corporation has been robbing the pension fund, and management scrubs the story because that corporation is an advertiser. The above externally imposed restrictions on content arise easily out of a hierarchical, institutional structure, where the work-product of the one is subordinated to the authority and prejudice of the other. But there's another type of censorship at work, more pervasive, yet less newsworthy. I'm talking about the way certain topics and points of view are excluded from discussion, largely by peer pressure, either because the topic/POV itself is culturally off limits, or because the author has been deemed an inappropriate source of credible opinion on the matter. Perhaps we can call this peer censorship. II. On another poetry site, I argued that these restrictions on content tend to thwart dialectic and frustrate healthy debate, hampering the competition among ideas – and ultimately marginalizing much of poetry If one role of poetry is to subject the pious verities of the age to scrutiny and to enlarge this scrutiny via aesthetic devices – and if another role of poetry is to facilitate the free competition of verities – then these prohibitions tend to keep the magnifying glass off the target, and dampen any sparks which would otherwise fly. III. I will now address the list of topics poets aren't supposed to write about and/or should confine their positions and spins to certain approved points of view. Note that I'm presenting these in the form of questions, to underscore my view that unlike the easterly rising of the sun these are not settled matters. Also note that this list is incomplete, and that I am asserting a comparative, not an absolute, censorship. If some of these questions are highly offensive to you, I want you to know that Gino and Bruno, the poetry goons, have already had their way with my knees. You will have to be content with my ankles and elbows. (1) Is democracy really the best form of government? Does effective democracy demand a higher level of due diligence than the citizenry is willing to extend? (Approved myth: democracy is always superior to other forms of government.) (2) Are stereotypes tantamount to prejudice? By branding stereotypes as bad, do we also condemn a body of valid generalizations? (Approved myth: stereotypes are universally prejudicial, except for this denunciation of stereotypes.) (3) Why do we pursue equality when it is really equity most of us seek? (Approved myth: the achievement of equality is the cornerstone of social justice. Besides, equity is a big word that most people don't understand.) (4) Does evil exist as a force in the universe? Or is evil merely a catchword for anti-social behavior? (Approved Myth #1: there is no force of evil. People are simply abused as children or inadequately socialized. Approved Myth #2: Yes, the hand of Satan is forever trying to corrupt us.) (5) Is peace always preferable to war? What about an oppressive peace? What about a just war? Are just wars necessarily reactive, or may they be pre-emptive? (Approved myth: war is bad; peace is good. Debate closed.) (6) Why do we revere progress and growth and stigmatize stasis? Why does the word new carry such power? (Approved myth: progress always trumps tradition. Without progress and growth, the economy will collapse. As Dylan said, "He who is not busy being born, is busy dying.") (7) Are some religions more dangerous than others? What if a religion spawns a much higher percentage of intolerant, violent, militant fanatics? (Approved myth: no religion is more dangerous than another. There is no such thing as a religion with a larger fraction of intolerant, violent, militant fanatics. That is simply what it looks like through the lens of prejudice.) (8) Is Free Trade popular just because it has the word free attached to it? Is Free Trade decimating the blue-collar class in the United States? (Approved Myth: Free Trade is the alternative to Protectionism, and Protectionism is always bad. Also see comparative advantage.) (9) Does making sex offenders register – and making these registries public via the internet – violate the tradition that says a perpetrator pays for his or her crime by serving time in the penitentiary? (Approved Myth: Sex crimes, unlike murder or raiding the pension fund, are unforgivable sins. Besides, we must protect our children.) (10) [Illegal Immigration #1] Is it true that illegal immigrants do the jobs that nobody else is willing to do? (Approved Myth: If a worker from Guatemala or Mexico didn't clean our houses, mow our lawns, or pick our vegetables, we would have filthy houses, unmown yards and the vegetables would rot in the fields.) (11) [Illegal Immigration #2] Can the US economy assimilate without significant collapse or damage an additional 25 to 50 million illegal immigrants over the next 20 years? (Approved Myth: No problem. If you think there is a problem, you're a racist.) (12) [Cultures #1] Is it still meaningful to look at cultures as barbaric vs. civilized? Are some cultures at an earlier stage of evolution? (Approved Myth: All cultures are created -- and remain -- equal.) (13) [Cultures #2] If a society has some practice which we consider heinous and brutal, are we morally justified in intervening? (Approved Myth: Live and let live. Imagine a society where infants and toddlers were carried on the backs of their mothers until age 3. To them, putting infants in cribs might look brutal and backward. Would they have a right to send hit teams to America to fix this problem?) (14) Are there times when a capacity toward violence is a virtue? (Approved Myth: Solving conflicts with violence is a carry-over from an earlier, more warlike age; conflicts should always be solved by negotiation and compromise.) (15) Are all races equal? (Approved Myth: Over the many dimensions of intelligence of our species – e.g. mathematical, verbal, social, physical, spiritual – there are no general differences from race to race. And even if on the average one race can be "shown" to have a little more, or less, ability in one area, either the difference is trivial, it is a statistical artifact, it is compensated for by their being a little the other way in another area, or the terms better or worse are not appropriate in this context.) (16) Is our relationship to the planet one of stewardship? (Approved Myth: In an earlier era, we thought of ourselves as masters; in truth, we are merely one element in a complex ecological web. Perhaps we are even weeds in the garden.) (17) Are there dire socioeconomic consequences when the citizenry continually uses price as the main decision-factor in choosing what and whether to buy? (Approved Myth: Even if there are negative consequences such as industries moving offshore to employ third-world workers and putting American workers out of their jobs, low prices trump all other values. Besides, displaced workers can easily be retrained.) (17) [Gender/Family Issues #1] If an infant is 50% in the birth canal and 50% born, does the mother still have a right to choose regarding the unborn lower torso, pelvis and legs and no right to choose regarding the upper torso, shoulders, arms and head? (Approved Myth: Either a woman has a right to choose or all abortion is murder. No moral dilemma. End of discussion. Would you please wipe that drool off your chin.) (18) [Gender/Family Issues #2] Do children turn out as well when raised in day care as when raised by their mothers? (Approved Myth #1: There is no difference in outcomes. Approved Myth #2: In modern life, a woman usually needs to work; so, even if children turn out a little worse when raised in day care, it is a necessary sacrifice.) (19) [Gender/Family Issue #3] Is mistreatment of a woman by a man worse than mistreatment of a man by a woman? (Approved Myth: Because men are, on the average, physically stronger, mistreatment of women by men constitutes abuse, whereas mistreatment of men by women is something less severe such as rudeness.) (20) Does classifying things like alcoholism, depression, and over-activity in children as diseases erode the element of personal responsibility in overcoming or accommodating these conditions? (Approved Myth: Classifying them as diseases gets them out of the closet, and makes them amenable to treatment and recovery.) (Message edited by sandiegopoet on September 24, 2006) | ||
| Bren
Advanced Member Username: bren Post Number: 1504 Registered: 12-2001 |
(19) [Gender/Family Issue #3] Is mistreatment of a woman by a man worse than mistreatment of a man by a woman? (Approved Myth: Because men are, on the average, physically stronger, mistreatment of women by men constitutes abuse, whereas mistreatment of men by women is something less severe such as rudeness.) I want to answer this one with a huge NO, it's the same thing! Both unacceptable. My Father endured abuse by my Step Mother. We're talking pushing, leaving him on the floor if he fell, locking all the doors so I couldn't get in to help him and many other things too long winded to mention. My Father had Parkinson's and became very feeble but his mind was sharp. All the talk about Social Services helping is pure illusion, there is no help and no one will attempt to try. I worked for months to do something, nothing came of it. My Dad died in Nov. 2003 and my step continued on her merry way. No one ever asked her any questions. Bren PenShells | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 373 Registered: 05-2006 |
Bren, I understand fully. My lover Beryl Jeffrey (09/02/47 - 11/15/02) had a vicious, persecutory mother. A few years before I met Beryl, her father committed suicide. The consensus of the family (Beryl's sister & daughter, to be specific) was that she beat him to death with her tongue. Later, in Beryl's final days, a spiritual healer was convinced that if Beryl could expunge the internalized wrath of her mother from her psyche -- both cognitive and spiritual -- that her immune system might just work miracles. She never did expunge this demon, and died of cancer in a hospice. Such is the disjunction between myth and reality. Fred | ||
| ~M~
Board Administrator Username: mjm Post Number: 8552 Registered: 11-1998 |
Aaaaaah, I don't want your delicate ankles or your wrinkly elbows. I won't be satisfied until I rip your still beating heart out of your outspoken chest and sink my teeth into that. *LOL* Just kidding, hon. Don't go for my jugular. I still need it occasionally. I won't speak to content here, as quite frankly, there is too much content and I would be here for the rest of my life. I will, however, speak to the essay as a form. What you are missing (and what you require here to distinguish this from a personal "I've been pilloried and, as if that wasn't enough, skewered and burnt to a crisp like a shish kabob" statement that could be criticized as too egocentric) is some research into how this topic affects all writers. Some specific references to other individuals who have also suffered this fate would go a long way toward lending credence to your arguments and giving it a legitimacy beyond just you. You need to point to other writers this has affected, Fred. If you don't, you run the risk that most people will think it affects only you and isn't important enough to concern themselves about. To round this out, you need to consider the following types of questions. How have other writers been harmed by this practice of peer censorship? How does peer censorship impact the writing community as a whole? Society as a whole? What is lost when authors are discouraged or even forbidden to speak by their peers about verboten subjects or to express unpopular views? Is peer censorship something the writing community should humor, tolerate, or even permit? Of course, this is not a complete exploration of all the questions that need to be asked and addressed, but it should provide a start. And in all cases when asking and answering these questions in your essay, you need to point to solid, third-party evidence to back you up. It wouldn't hurt to interview and quote a few experts as well. People with credentials beyond your own circles can be powerful allies when it comes to making your points and having people seriously consider them. Without all this, Fred, I'm afraid your essay could be considered the angry rant, albeit justified, of an abused and disillusioned writer. In my opinion, you need to turn this from the personal into the universal and make sure that all writers who read it are aware that someday this topic could affect them. Going beyond yourself can offer you that legitimacy. I would also like you to carefully consider these kinds of statements: "a coven of exceptionally bright but ideologically narrow persons, a kind of Red Guard of the preachy petulant" Using emotionally-loaded words like coven and preachy petulant, while they can be extremely satisfying in the short-term, can undermine your positions and cause you to be taken less than seriously. Which I'd hate to see happen as I think you have some excellent points to make. Of course, sarcasm is highly seductive, but is it strengthening how you are being perceived by your readership? Do emotional words in an essay make you seem more or less capable of addressing this topic in a level-headed manner? I would keep in mind that the purpose of an essay is not only to get people who agree with you on board, but perhaps even to sway your detractors. In my experience, remaining emotionally neutral helps in that regard. Putting people on the defensive isn't necessarily the best way to change their minds. As for Section III, I might split it out and give it its own essay. It certainly could spark enough subtopics and debate on its own to warrant that. This section sort of reminded me of George Carlin and his seven (it was seven, wasn't it?) dirty words you can't say on television. While this list applies to the topic of peer censorship, it is more specific, more personal to the author and less generalized to the masses of writers out there. Hence, I felt they'd be better placed in a separate piece. And if not its own essay, then at least move it to the end. It would then not split sections I felt needed to be considered together. I would also consider categorizing every question on the list as you have done with immigration, gender, family issues, culture. People always retain more when lists are organized and categorized for them. I think you need to put like things together and subtitle the various categories. Bouncing around just causes unwanted confusion. Hope something I've said here will help. And these are merely my opinions, of course. You are under no obligation to agree with or to even consider anything I've said. I have been wrong many times before, and always caution everyone who gives me an audience to take my advice with a grain of salt. Love, M | ||
| K L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1374 Registered: 08-2004 |
I'm going to approach one issue here, Fred: Emotional attachment. Hon, you must be able to ignore the type of harrassment you have encountered to be able to speak-out without emotion. Your essay is pointed and charged instead of points about charges. Stick to the facts, without name calling or pointed fingers and you will be that last tree standing. You are extremely clever without telling me so-- show me dear, like I know, and you know that you can. Cut this essay to facts; remove yourself emotionally and VIOLA! you'll have an exceptional article. I'm with you man! All the way. (((hugs))) Karen KL Monahan's Blog | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 375 Registered: 05-2006 |
Karen & ~M~, Point well taken about de-Freding and deemotionalizing the essay. Even if my retorts are potent and clever, I don't want this to be about FRED, I want it to be about a condition that afflicts the poetry community. Fred [putting down Uzi and offering his antagonists a final cigarette] (Message edited by sandiegopoet on September 24, 2006) | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1875 Registered: 11-1998 |
Been there, said that, and got chastised for it. No tee-shirt even. “Stupid is as stupid does,” to quote Forest Gump’s momma, however, that probably pertains more to me than it did Forest. I enjoyed your essay, Fred, and I agree with M’s suggestion to try not using emotionally-loaded words. Not an easy thing to do in all circumstance. I’d tell you it’s a hard row to hoe, but from my personal experience, if I did say that, it would be interpreted as racial slander and political incorrectness. So, with that NOT being said, screw the politics and screw the cultural inequities, etc. Be true to thine own self. Write whatever you feel a need to write, which I believe you will, Fred. And that’s a good thing, always . . . D | ||
| Zephyr
Senior Member Username: zephyr Post Number: 4878 Registered: 07-2003 |
An interesting essay, in agreement with the others here regarding depersonalising this. Be true to yourself Fred. Perhaps the lack of response....apart from you Fred on my post about poets in a war zone is an example about 12; some cultures, perhaps after 9/11 a difficult one. We had the London bombings too and we have taken casualties too...more than have been publicised. Sometimes I think we have to look into the abyss of our own wrongdoings and forgive ourselves before we can truly see that we are all the same and are able to see and comprehend both sides of any conflict, know that we are all human. They have suffered far worse losses than we have. We once had wars over religion, in the end we had to sort it out for ourselves. Best wishes Zephyr Igor Stravinsky In order to create there must be a dynamic force, and what force is more potent than love? | ||
| Zephyr
Senior Member Username: zephyr Post Number: 4879 Registered: 07-2003 |
With regard to the 19; gender /family issue. I used to work as a district nurse. One of my patients carers female actually felt safe enough with me to confess she felt like battering her husband,(the patient)she too was in emotional pain, which when we were aware what was happening we were able to resolve and avert a potentially disastrous situation. If we can withold judgement we are more likely to resolve matters in any conflict situation. Best wishes Zephyr Igor Stravinsky In order to create there must be a dynamic force, and what force is more potent than love? | ||
| Lazarus
Advanced Member Username: lazarus Post Number: 2253 Registered: 10-2005 |
Fred- The concept of the "approved myth" could be better explained by using examples of changes that have occurred in these positions over time; one thing that seems certain about what we decide is politically correct is that change is inevitable. I use that term because I still think it is the best concept to explain the process that goes on in the making of our cultural consensus. Before the invention of this term we humans didn't really have a grasp of how our taboos are formed. I think we really believed that if something was right to us at one moment, it should and would always remain right. The idea of PC-ness has added another dimension, it tries to pin down terms and concepts that will always seem right to us, but sadly, or perhaps rightfully, we have found that that is not possible. In literature writers are always exploring the edges of the cultural norms, if they weren't people wouldn't find their work interesting! Perhaps the realm you wish to investigate is just beyond the fringes, and this might be a place where your readers are going to feel a bit lost, with no signs of where they came from. Therefor, I believe it is important for writers to keep close to the boundaries, but always point to a place just beyond them. At times in my writing I have taken a position that doesn't fit the norms. Sometimes I am swimming up stream, and sometimes I'm on the cusp of a sea change, and only feeling what others are also beginning to feel. For those times that I'm going against the grain I can usually find a personal piece, some self-absorbed idea that I'm trying to empower through my writing. Generally this is not my most effective writing. But at some point these ideas will form into something useful that is closer to a universal experience, better communication, and better writing. That's all I can say right now. Your list is interesting and worth looking at for ideas, however a position that is not too far off the grid, I believe, would be the best way to communicate them. “The shoreline meets the sea and somewhere in between is foam, is home, is where you roam.” -Andrew Dufresne (Wild Poet) Poetspennies eBay Window | ||
| Will Eastland
New member Username: dwillo Post Number: 19 Registered: 07-2006 |
While I would tend to agree with your assesment of some of the truisms you refer to as "approved myths", your reader would probably benefit from a more in depth justifcation for using that label. I always enjoy your posts. | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 379 Registered: 05-2006 |
This is an extremely difficult piece to write. Difficult because it is hard to put myself at the correct "aesthetic distance." Difficult because I have been the object of vicious behavior on the part of people who, were they king or queen, would have my head. And somehow I have to separate myself from this, so that my writing about peer censorship or political correctness or whatever it is that hems a writer into "acceptable" channels, is not about FRED, but about the culture's own struggle to remain intellectually OPEN without stooping to a Darwinian mentality. Yet I want to make this contemporary. Ezra Pound's adventures with Fascism are not the illustrations I wish to delve into. Neither am I concerned with the attitude the poetry establishment took toward Ginsberg and the other beats. Though their experiences are relevant, this is an essay not a graduate thesis. I want to focus on the negative (and positive) experiences my contemporaries in the poetry community have had when attempting to publicly read or have published poems that take unpopular, even iconclastic, views. Again, please share them with me. If anonymity is important to you, I will respect this. I know that this censorship is a burden that affects us all. I want to PROVE this burden exists; I want to PROVE this burden is ultimately stultifying. Right now, I am merely asserting it to be so. Fred | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1876 Registered: 11-1998 |
Fred -many years ago I wrote something called "Oriental Rove" and posted it on a site that shall remain nameless. Not sure how it all started but somebody thought I was referencing "eating cats." They (not me) thought that's what Orientals substituted for chicken along with their fried lice. After it was established that I was not an animal hater, or writing about "eating cats," I was then accused of making fun of Orientals because they oftentimes do not enunciate their L words properly. Long story short, it was a joke. I wasn’t meaning to offend anybody but somehow I offended the entire site and half the world’s population. Ever since, I have tried in earnest to make light of “political correctness” at every given opportunity: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Bistro/8094/ I haven’t updated the web page in several years but there’s still something there to offend everyone (and every nationality), It seemed like a good idea at the time. And the sentiments expressed therein hold true to this very day. *smies* D (Message edited by dane on September 25, 2006) | ||
| Lazarus
Advanced Member Username: lazarus Post Number: 2256 Registered: 10-2005 |
Fred- I have some experience in reportorial writing and I would like to offer my assistance in helping you to craft a more universal opening. It's important to ask questions rather than make statements. You can offer your experience, but without judgement, which can be hard to do, but for the most part you need to ask you basic question with an open mind. If you are interested you can email me a copy of this essay and I will edit it. I do not plan to make notes, I will just return it to you in a version closer to what I think would work. On the question of internet bullying- I think we've all experienced this at one time or another. It doesn't have to be poems that people object to- virtually anything we do can subject us to a mob mentality. This would be an important subject in itself. However, your question is: is the internet a magnifier of an effect that has always been a part of the critical world? Probably. Which is why your essay is needed, if only to clarify that point. “The shoreline meets the sea and somewhere in between is foam, is home, is where you roam.” -Andrew Dufresne (Wild Poet) Poetspennies eBay Window | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 381 Registered: 05-2006 |
A-Bear, How dare you call them "cats"! They're feline Americans. And, of course, "Oriental" is out. "Asian" is in. Finally, watch what you say about Carl Rove. Tsk-tsk! Sometimes political correctness or peer censorship becomes an attack on humor. Fred * * * * * Will, The word "myths" is borrowed from the several books on anthropology and sociology I've read these last few years. The adjective "approved" is mine. Are you wanting me to show how the "approval process" occurs? Fred * * * * * Zephyr, I too was wondering why only I responded to your post about Iraqi poetry. I would imagine that many couples reach their seventies or eighties, and the woman is in better health than the man. The caregiving he needs constitutes a huge and expanding burden for the woman, and she becomes resentful, even openly angry. In many cases, I'm sure she becomes the batterer; he, the battered. This is entirely a guess, but I would think that the battering scenario would more often occur when the ailing spouse had Alzheimers. Fred * * * * * Lazarus, Ye of the bas relief! One way to document the changes over time would be to contrast the myth of 1956 with the myth of 2006. To cite a couple of examples. In 1956, a majority of women stayed home, raised their children, would answer affirmatively to the word "homemaker." (I've always preferred homemaker to housewife.) In 2006, a majority of women stay home right after the baby is born, then return to work, at least part time. (Since you are an eBay vendor . . . I would bet there are large numbers of young moms who take their babies and toddlers with them while they scour the thrift stores, then sell the fruits of their forays on eBay. A wonderful part-time gig, I would think, and something that can be done in the little chunks of time that childrearing affords.) Other major alternations in myth, 1956 vs. 2006: (1) more favorable attitudes toward marijuana; (2) support for girls' and women's sports at all levels; (3) declining enthusiasm for military service in the middle classes and higher; (4) pervasive unacceptability of "separate but equal" as a solution to the race problem. (When I use the word "myth" I'm saying that there's a corresponding story that goes along with a social attitude -- the kind of story you can tell your child -- or the kind of story that long ago Athenian parents told their children. Perhaps in my twenty examples, I might articulate the stories a little more.) You make an interesting point regarding how far from the boundary between the acceptable and the unacceptable that a writer should position him- or herself. How far should one push the envelope? If you go a little ways, you can still be thought of as a pace-setter, innovator, maybe even visionary -- or on the downside, a maverick. A little further than that begins to threaten people on a deep level. Suddenly, one is an iconoclast, a dissident, a trouble-maker, a kook. One step further out, you become a bigot, a fanatic, a traitor, or a nutcake. Get out the hemlock. Thank you for the kind offer to edit the essay. I'll send it to you. Fred | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 383 Registered: 05-2006 |
There's an essay in the current (Sept) issue of Poetry by John Barr called "American Poetry in the New Century." (See pp. 433-441.) I think this article is relevant to the above essay and subsequent comments. Though I subscribe to Poetry, this had somehow slipped by me. Good friend, fine poet and gracious poetry host Seretta Martin recently called this to my attention. * * * * * I'm also going to add a #21 to my list: What is wrong with power? (Approved Myth: Power corrupts. Power implies abuse. The solution is to level the playing field, to eliminate concentrations of power.) * * * * * Thanks to Lazarus for her kind offer to assist me in editing this. Fred (Message edited by sandiegopoet on September 28, 2006) | ||
| sue kay
Valued Member Username: suekay Post Number: 239 Registered: 11-2005 |
Fred, I am not surprised you had the experience you did. I'm a bit surprised tho, that you are surprised. As a poet, you have to call it as you see it. Kill the messenger isn't exactly a new phenomena. But you are still alive, and the point you have raised is one that merits discussion. First, I will have to disagree with M, about the introduction of your personal experience. It doesn't have to be a rant. I for one, would like to see you introduce your essay with the poem, and then list the reactions it generated. Perhaps you might offer a disclaimer that this essay isn't about this specific poem, or its relative merit or demerit but about the thesis of your essay. If I recall, the reaction was to your message, not your craft. This simply offers us the chance to view the text, and you get present your argument in the form of a concrete event. You can then begin to form the basic question of your essay. And of course, your thesis is who gets to say what we can say? If it is the literary community, then perhaps they have some orthodoxies of their own that need some examination. If there are rigid orthodoxies in place, you can pretty much diagnose them, not by what their holders tell you about them, but by their reaction to your threat, because the strength of their reaction to you tells you that they felt threatened. So peer censorship operates as all these things do by damning the messenger, and discarding anything that he might have carried to their attention. This is in my view a receipe for moribund and stultifying art. The problem is that "new" lasts about as long as yesterday's news. It goes without saying that today's revolutionary is tomorrow's reactionary. I think its useful to use your example as a case in point. Censorship peer or otherwise always stifles a free and open debate, the problem is here I think that you expected better of your peers. I must ask why? Perhaps that is worth looking into. Education doesn't cleanse one of predjudice, sometimes it simply substitutes its own. ( I am reminded of the Strontium 90, thingy when I was growing up. It resembled in element calcium and was readily accepted into children's bones as such.) This of course means that you are poking into the deepest base of beliefs, and there I think the struggle between the Utopian and Tragic view keep colliding. For the Utopian, the only thing that gets in the way of a perfect world, is the stupid ones that don't cooperate. So we get the old, egg/omelette thing. So many eggs, so few omelettes. Or that old maxim about Marxism, that when the system is complete there will be no train wrecks. You have questioned, I think, the Utopian world view, tapped into a high pressure resevoir inadvertantly and got a real dose of blow back. Anyway, the essay you referenced from Sept Poetry is a good read, and I think would be a very good subject for discussion on its own. But I have read essays like this before. The essential question is, why is poetry which is so widely practiced now, as common as wildflowers, soooo not read by the wider public? I think Barr mentioned that attitude has replaced art. I can't agree more. And further, it's simply dissatisfying as a complete motive for creativity. There is a similiar discussion by the always instructive(but challenging) Robert Conquest: http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/dec04/rconquest.htm I think that while the academy has done a superb job of training the poet in the craft of his art, it overlooks the art of his craft. And I also think that there is a sbutle but profound dislike of the audience for whom it is intended. I don't think its conscious or even mean spirited, I simply think it reflects the disconnect between the artist and his fellow travelers: Those who are out "watching someone pour concrete" and those who are actually doing it. I think Barr is onto something there. But regardless, an audience knows when it is being dissed, even when they aren't sure why they know. So here's my little tongue in cheek poke back. Masters Thesis In the academy the suzerainty of poetics is predicated on the notion the natives won't get it: An examination of post colonial education. You have cited a number of topics that are off limits for any but the accepted (read educated) point of view, and anyone who holds otherwise is in fact informed not by reason but by the darkest corner of his soul. Of course thus has it always been. Tony Hoagland has an essay in the March issue of Poetry that dances up to that same line. He disusses the idea of the lyric vs the narrative, finds much to like about lyric, but finds himself in the same place as Barr, asking "is that all there is." Maybe that's a starting place. JMHO. Finally, ref the Barr essay, there is much competing for the readers attention in this information age. We have a lot of things to process and one would think that poetry, with its concision would be flourishing. The fact is, it should be. But it's not, tho as Barr says it seems that people are willing to read it. So there may not be a problem with poetry itself, but the strictures that are now containing it. I think you got a dose of reality at your poetry reading, and I wouldn't let it drop there. regards Sue | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 417 Registered: 05-2006 |
Sue, I want to thank you for your considered thoughts. I will have further comments later. Fred (Message edited by sandiegopoet on October 04, 2006) | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Senior Member Username: garyb Post Number: 9299 Registered: 07-2001 |
Fred, tis not all that uncommon. Do a liberal/left theme at a slam and you will get praise, do the other - even if well written and performed - and you may get tomatoes. A bit of a shame in in my opinion. Just as it is that you edited the post. Smiles. Gary A River Transformed The Dawg House July FireWeed more War/Peace | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 419 Registered: 05-2006 |
Gary, it IS a shame. Maybe I will UNedit. Or maybe I need to have the essay in two (or more) forms: the full-balls-out version -- which speaks to those who have ears for it (you, for example) -- and the "comes on less strong" version, which Lazarus has graciously assisted me with -- and which speaks to those who prefer a more understated, less strident approach. The point is to communicate to a broad range of sensibilities. * * * * * It was at Terrie Relf's reading at Rebecca's Coffee House that the fellow began shouting "Racist! Bigot!" when I read "Bad Religion." Terrie asked him to leave. My only regret is that I blew my cool. I became angry. I should've handed him the MIC and told him it was his turn to have the floor. And when he refused to take the MIC, I should've very gently said, "Tell you what. When you do have the MIC, even if I disagree with you ardently, I promise to hold my tongue." -- putting him in a position where he would've had to defend butting in and shouting. * * * * * There's a local poet here in San Diego. Like Terrie, she teaches at a college level. She is black. She has several poems which are extraordinarily racist. They include numerous derogatory references to Whites, and I mean Whites as a race, not just the bad apples: Lester Mattox, the KKK, the White Aryan Resistance. Whites are portrayed as arrogant, narrow-minded and cruel. Clearly, from her POV, White people as a race carry the guilt burden for the prejudices and actions of our most racist & bigoted. And as a race, we must do penance and make recompense. To me, she's a racist, just like Louis Farrakhan is being a racist when he goes after Jews. But the "party line" is that an oppressed people cannot be racist; they are merely expressing their rage. Let's generalize this ludicrous argument. Hmmmmm. "My name is Mark Foley. If what I did had been done by someone who wasn't abused as a child, then sure as hell he would deserve the full wrath of the law. But me -- I was abused and molested as a child -- and besides, I'm a drunk, and on top of this I'm gay -- so, you see, that pretty much gets me off the hook. When those pretty-boy pages crossed my path, I couldn't help myself. * * * * * Sigh. Fred (Message edited by sandiegopoet on October 07, 2006) | ||
| Lazarus
Advanced Member Username: lazarus Post Number: 2275 Registered: 10-2005 |
Fred- Returning to this lively discussion I see there are few remarks that I have missed due to the server hiccups. As you point out, in only the last 50 years many of the myths have turned on their head or at least taken on a new look. I think it's important to point this out in your essay, if only to state the obvious and make us think about how our "accepted values" fluctuate and don't deserve to be canonised. I like your #21. (I'm a gonna go out on a limb here and state an opinion- We fear concentrated power in the West, unlike the Muslim cultures who believe it is essential. It is perhaps the thing that divides us the most.) Myth #22 It's always good to state one's opinion. Do people really care what we think? People only care what we think if it has something to do with them. There's something important about what you say concerning how far off the path you want to go. It used to be that to talk about sex and write in a jazz beat was really out there. Ginsburg and all those beat writers were challenging culture, so what can we do now? They've already broken through every taboo! And yet your list shows that our open culture really isn't that open after all. They tried to make Bob Dylan into a counter-culture hero and he wouldn't have it. His attitude was that he writes what he sees, and you can take away from it what ever message you choose. I think he showed us where the line was time and time again; if I have any goal in mind as a writer it's to be just like that. A poets work is to be "busy doing nothing." ~Billy Collins Poetspennies eBay Window | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Senior Member Username: garyb Post Number: 9307 Registered: 07-2001 |
Ah, Foley! We've reached the stage where no one is responsible for what they do - it is all because of childhood trauma, twinkies, boozing, drugs, the weather, teachers, spiders, diet, or the fact that the sun came up this morning... Whether it is a milkman blowing away children, Hellsapopping blowing up a pizza parlor, a poet blowing up a reading, they need to take responsibility for what they do and admit hatred - self or otherwise - drives them more than rational thought... I lean left, but see the fringe left or right as the same in deed and word: You must agree with me or else... BTW, why understate if you tell the truth? And we are obligated to cry bullshit when you do not. Smiles. Gary See the new BK commercial?: Is there sit in you? A River Transformed The Dawg House July FireWeed more War/Peace | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 432 Registered: 05-2006 |
Gary, I wrote a song a few years ago with the refrain -- I'm a victim, I'm a victim, please don't blame it all on me. I'm a victim -- can't you see? -- of society. Fred * * * * * Laz, Will return with a comment . . . need to jet to work. Fred | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Senior Member Username: garyb Post Number: 9340 Registered: 07-2001 |
Fred, that song needs to expanded, recorded... Smiles. Gary whre is the CMT when you need them... A River Transformed The Dawg House July FireWeed more War/Peace |
