As you all are all aware, the military recently confirmed that it sought to build a "gay bomb." A link with more information:
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html
More importantly, however, is the recent Pentagon blueprint of the gay bomb that was recently released to the public:
http://thegaybomb.com/
War will never be the same.
-j
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
I Got Yer Poetics Right Here!
Describing my poetics is about as easy as describing the taste of purple. Actually, purple is grape to me, so that’s probably not an apt comparison. Before I digress further, the original topic: my poetics.
I feel inclined to discuss poetics through a goal-oriented lens. By writing poetry, I hope to destabilize traditional poetic structure by bringing language, styles, and themes into conflict. While I possess no hermeneutics to accomplish this goal, my underlying principle is to rely on surreal or absurd techniques in order to “jar” (as B would say) the reader. Generally, I’m not attempting Edson-esque surrealism; rather, I prefer a more dream-like scenario where scene shifts are frequent, where characters interact with completely impractical situations. This partially explains why some of my favorite poems are my “Dream Sequence” poems and their related offspring (follow the No Tell Motel link for examples if you like). I’ve found this style demands vigilance from me as it is easy to escape to transition from surreal to silly, but pitfalls akin to this are found in all types of poetry (forced rhymes, reliance on clichés, etc.).
A difficult I’ve always had is trying to find an authentic method to convince the reader to take the poem so literally, which is normal with more “mainstream” poetry where the reader can take the text literally and then derive something greater from the whole. I don’t want this literal, true-as-the-Gospel artifice, though I hope the sentences themselves form some cogent whole that builds on what is generally considered normal or real. (I have a fascination with “the real,” another reasons why I prefer dream sequences and breaking from traditional narrative structure.) I’m experimenting with a thoroughly removed, objective voice to force the reader to consider the text as it is: surreal, absurd, quasi-real, quasi-drug induced fantasy world.
Dealing with the online poetry workshops: this is where I’ve learned about 75% of what I know about poetry (the rest, and it is growing, is simply from reading other poets who I admire). While I’ve generally made a foray back into the online workshop world, I remember why I withdrew quite clearly after one post. All too often, I receive one of two main complaints:
The poem is too removed, emotionless, or, just recently, academic. The last term is loaded beyond all measure, so I usually interpret it as one of the first terms.
“If you are actually referring to this” or “If this is an actual . . .” – in other words, people that have difficulty considering the work from a non-narrative perspective.
(As an aside, it is very tempting to simply dismiss critics b/c, with online workshops, you can review the critic’s own writing and determine a) whether the critic is competent by their own writing or even b) if the critic is working with a similar style or on a similar project. However, as B has taught me, those that do not enjoy a particular style or poetry or even write modern poetry often make wonderful critics. So this type of judgment is something I attempt to avoid.)
For the most part, both complaints boil down to a matter of aesthetics. I’m confident in my ability to craft good verse, and I don’t flagrantly violate the sacred commandments of poetry (thou shall avoid abstractions, thou shall not use the word ebony to describe night) except when it serves my purposes. I can generally catch technical errors, weed out weak sentences, and determine whether or not a poem is even working. Why I like other readers is to determine how well the poem really works: does the surreal scene allow objects to interact in a good manner, does the voice enhance the poem, what do you take away from this poem, etc. Generally, I don’t get this except from B. And I wonder if I will get this in a workshop where the vast majority of posters have difficult accepting “experimental” work – don’t’ get me started on how many times I’ve heard complaints about using the second person in a poem.
I enjoy online workshop communities, though, b/c there is occasionally a good experimental poem or b/c I’ve found many other “normal” poets whose work I enjoy and whose opinion I value. It’s always a conundrum: sacrifice a few hours a week participating for minimal poetic feedback or, otherwise, lose that sense of community that is nice since Huntington has no poetry community worth mentioning.
FWIW, the poetics of my most recent project involves a conversation between an “I” and “you” over a series of (approximately) 25 poems or so. Two main forms used with an emphasis on terse statements and quick observations. I’m regarding the “you” as Nothing or a non-entity, and the two are attempting to discover what they have in common. As referenced earlier, the working title is Psalms to No One and I’d like to turn it into a chapbook. Would someone like to take it out on a date when it's of age?
* * *
I always feel so haughty when talking poetics. I’m always uncomfortable, too, b/c it seems like I’m setting myself apart from all other poets in existence b/c of the online workshops I frequent. That’s simply untrue: almost every journal and poet I read is “experimental” in some form or another. I’m very much aware of the aesthetic sphere I inhibit, so don’t think I’m ignorant of the wide world outside my window. Sometimes I think it’s easier to work with more experimental forms if you have a support group of some sort. I admire many small presses and bloggers who obviously have a tight-nit community. It’s easy to see how well many presses / editors get along: Unpleasant Event Schedule, Octopus, Pilot, H_NGM_N, Forklift, OH, horse less review, and The Canary all get along remarkably well insofar as you’re likely to see any number of familiar faces in each issue, and the editors obviously know each other quite a bit. I’m not envious so much for the publication aspect of things – I’ve been in a couple of those zines and many others that I value just as much as those – as much as the networking advantage, of knowing people who write similarly. I'd rather be published for the quality of my work, not b/c I know the editor. Having work solicited, though, is always fun, though, when you're not in bed with the editor. Couple that isolation with the inevitable rejections from this biz, and I find myself prone to far too many doubts about the worth of my writing.
Sometimes I need to remind myself that I write poetry for ME first and foremost. Publication is secondary.
* * *
Speaking of networking, I get to go schmooze it up with some suits tonight at a business reception. Partners will talk with partners, underlings with underlings. Merriment by all, except I hate networking and business types in general. The last think I want to discuss after work is work, how can I help your business so you can help mine, and other superficial nonsense. I’m an introvert by nature, and though I can open up nicely in the right environments, this isn’t one of them.
* * *
But I’ll always be open to my anonymous blog acolytes.
Be good, y’all.
-j
I feel inclined to discuss poetics through a goal-oriented lens. By writing poetry, I hope to destabilize traditional poetic structure by bringing language, styles, and themes into conflict. While I possess no hermeneutics to accomplish this goal, my underlying principle is to rely on surreal or absurd techniques in order to “jar” (as B would say) the reader. Generally, I’m not attempting Edson-esque surrealism; rather, I prefer a more dream-like scenario where scene shifts are frequent, where characters interact with completely impractical situations. This partially explains why some of my favorite poems are my “Dream Sequence” poems and their related offspring (follow the No Tell Motel link for examples if you like). I’ve found this style demands vigilance from me as it is easy to escape to transition from surreal to silly, but pitfalls akin to this are found in all types of poetry (forced rhymes, reliance on clichés, etc.).
A difficult I’ve always had is trying to find an authentic method to convince the reader to take the poem so literally, which is normal with more “mainstream” poetry where the reader can take the text literally and then derive something greater from the whole. I don’t want this literal, true-as-the-Gospel artifice, though I hope the sentences themselves form some cogent whole that builds on what is generally considered normal or real. (I have a fascination with “the real,” another reasons why I prefer dream sequences and breaking from traditional narrative structure.) I’m experimenting with a thoroughly removed, objective voice to force the reader to consider the text as it is: surreal, absurd, quasi-real, quasi-drug induced fantasy world.
Dealing with the online poetry workshops: this is where I’ve learned about 75% of what I know about poetry (the rest, and it is growing, is simply from reading other poets who I admire). While I’ve generally made a foray back into the online workshop world, I remember why I withdrew quite clearly after one post. All too often, I receive one of two main complaints:
The poem is too removed, emotionless, or, just recently, academic. The last term is loaded beyond all measure, so I usually interpret it as one of the first terms.
“If you are actually referring to this” or “If this is an actual . . .” – in other words, people that have difficulty considering the work from a non-narrative perspective.
(As an aside, it is very tempting to simply dismiss critics b/c, with online workshops, you can review the critic’s own writing and determine a) whether the critic is competent by their own writing or even b) if the critic is working with a similar style or on a similar project. However, as B has taught me, those that do not enjoy a particular style or poetry or even write modern poetry often make wonderful critics. So this type of judgment is something I attempt to avoid.)
For the most part, both complaints boil down to a matter of aesthetics. I’m confident in my ability to craft good verse, and I don’t flagrantly violate the sacred commandments of poetry (thou shall avoid abstractions, thou shall not use the word ebony to describe night) except when it serves my purposes. I can generally catch technical errors, weed out weak sentences, and determine whether or not a poem is even working. Why I like other readers is to determine how well the poem really works: does the surreal scene allow objects to interact in a good manner, does the voice enhance the poem, what do you take away from this poem, etc. Generally, I don’t get this except from B. And I wonder if I will get this in a workshop where the vast majority of posters have difficult accepting “experimental” work – don’t’ get me started on how many times I’ve heard complaints about using the second person in a poem.
I enjoy online workshop communities, though, b/c there is occasionally a good experimental poem or b/c I’ve found many other “normal” poets whose work I enjoy and whose opinion I value. It’s always a conundrum: sacrifice a few hours a week participating for minimal poetic feedback or, otherwise, lose that sense of community that is nice since Huntington has no poetry community worth mentioning.
FWIW, the poetics of my most recent project involves a conversation between an “I” and “you” over a series of (approximately) 25 poems or so. Two main forms used with an emphasis on terse statements and quick observations. I’m regarding the “you” as Nothing or a non-entity, and the two are attempting to discover what they have in common. As referenced earlier, the working title is Psalms to No One and I’d like to turn it into a chapbook. Would someone like to take it out on a date when it's of age?
* * *
I always feel so haughty when talking poetics. I’m always uncomfortable, too, b/c it seems like I’m setting myself apart from all other poets in existence b/c of the online workshops I frequent. That’s simply untrue: almost every journal and poet I read is “experimental” in some form or another. I’m very much aware of the aesthetic sphere I inhibit, so don’t think I’m ignorant of the wide world outside my window. Sometimes I think it’s easier to work with more experimental forms if you have a support group of some sort. I admire many small presses and bloggers who obviously have a tight-nit community. It’s easy to see how well many presses / editors get along: Unpleasant Event Schedule, Octopus, Pilot, H_NGM_N, Forklift, OH, horse less review, and The Canary all get along remarkably well insofar as you’re likely to see any number of familiar faces in each issue, and the editors obviously know each other quite a bit. I’m not envious so much for the publication aspect of things – I’ve been in a couple of those zines and many others that I value just as much as those – as much as the networking advantage, of knowing people who write similarly. I'd rather be published for the quality of my work, not b/c I know the editor. Having work solicited, though, is always fun, though, when you're not in bed with the editor. Couple that isolation with the inevitable rejections from this biz, and I find myself prone to far too many doubts about the worth of my writing.
Sometimes I need to remind myself that I write poetry for ME first and foremost. Publication is secondary.
* * *
Speaking of networking, I get to go schmooze it up with some suits tonight at a business reception. Partners will talk with partners, underlings with underlings. Merriment by all, except I hate networking and business types in general. The last think I want to discuss after work is work, how can I help your business so you can help mine, and other superficial nonsense. I’m an introvert by nature, and though I can open up nicely in the right environments, this isn’t one of them.
* * *
But I’ll always be open to my anonymous blog acolytes.
Be good, y’all.
-j
My Turn
Since B has revealed her identity, it's time for me to do the same:
* * *
A post later on poetics and why I love/hate online poetry forums.
-j
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Poet's Challenge.
Write a poem inspired in some way by this:
Credited to a J. Forson on the caption of the one I have.
Credited to a J. Forson on the caption of the one I have.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
R.I.P, Richard Rorty: philosopher, intellectual, hideously dull read.
Check out a good obit here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2168488/
Somewhere, J. - who does not yet know - is wincing in pain from this knowledge, and thinking he has indigestion.
I, who had to read Contigency, Irony, and Solidarity for a class this winter, am not
But R.I.P anyhoo.
- b -
http://www.slate.com/id/2168488/
Somewhere, J. - who does not yet know - is wincing in pain from this knowledge, and thinking he has indigestion.
I, who had to read Contigency, Irony, and Solidarity for a class this winter, am not
But R.I.P anyhoo.
- b -
Thursday, June 7, 2007
I weep with recognition.
This article in The Onion is a summation of my entire academic career: past, present, and future. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
The headline is, "Professor Sees Parallels Between Things, Other Things."
Go check it out:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/professor_sees_parallels
- b
The headline is, "Professor Sees Parallels Between Things, Other Things."
Go check it out:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/professor_sees_parallels
- b
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Isn't that Your Job?
Rarely am I at a loss for words (figuratively speaking). However, since B’s car windshield and a random stone made sweet highway love three weeks ago, trying to find a company who is a) willing to replace her windshield glass, b) has the materials available to do so, and c) is willing to do said activity at an agreed up on price is nigh impossible it seems.
One glass company treated her like a stereotypical woman; needless to say, B was quite upset (re: pissed). The glass technician (let’s give them a high-strung name) said that she would be better off to wait until the glass spidered or at least until next month when her inspection sticker runs out. B insisted that she get it replaced as soon as possible, which was the original plan. The fellow simply restated his position, walked inside, and left B fuming. Glass company two quoted us a price and said they would repair it in our apartment’s driveway. Cool beans, I thought, until they did not call the day of the appointment to confirm when they would arrive. Upon calling them, they claimed that they did not have the adhesive / sealant necessary for the windshield b/c B’s car is new (07 model). If we would run by the dealership and procure the adhesive / sealant, they would be happy to install it. Not that they should be responsible for procuring said product or anything.
Finally, glass company three originally matched the quote of class company two and said they would install B’s windshield tomorrow. However, upon confirming the appointment today, their representative quoted me the original price sans discount (about $60 difference). I stated that I was quote a discounted price; subsequently, I was put on hold for about five minutes only to have the representative state that they could take about $10 off the original price, leaving them $50 higher than my agreed upon quote, and that was as low as they could go. I told them it obviously wasn’t as low as they could go and that I would take my business elsewhere.
Glass company four is scheduled to arrive tomorrow at some point, and they have matched the quote from glass company two. We’ll see what happens. It shouldn’t be this hard to get a windshield installed for a reasonable price.
* * *
As my readership may have surmised, I have finished A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History, which ended on a mixed note. De Landa took more responsibility than most pomo authors by stating that heterogeneity for the sake of heterogeneity is not necessarily the supreme good considering the amount of turbulence caused by radical change. He also provided a nice overview of how the world is becoming increasingly homogenized linguistically, biologically, and culturally. Needless to say, he believes there are many problems with uniformity in these spheres.
My biggest problem, though, was De Landa’s insistence on waving his pomo phallus around by conjuring the Body without Organs (BwO) from Deleuze & Guitarri. Yes, using a phrase like that makes De Landa appear smart, but the currents, matter flows, and intensities he discussed earlier made plenty of sense without the injection of a new phrase accompanied by a painfully abstract vernacular. In some places, it read like a sophomoric attempt to combine geometry with marijuana-inspired philosophy. One of the first lessons I learned in college English was to avoid introducing new material in a paper’s conclusions. While this is a generalization, De Landa’s musings on the BwO were unnecessary and would not have been missed if omitted.
I also managed to start and finish Mao II by Don DeLillo this weekend. Absolutely fabulous fiction, and his observations regarding the voice of terrorism, the human desire for community, and the search for anything to believe in were done masterfully. At first, the book seemed disjunctive at best, but he weaved all the themes – Rev. Moon, terrorism, a reclusive writer’s life, the homeless in NYC, etc. – into one intense, unhappy collage. As much as I love the work of Ian McEwan for pure story telling pleasure, DeLillo succeeds on many deeper levels.
I’m currently reading a book on options trading. I won’t bore you with any reviews.
* * *
I am happy to announce that I’m about ½ way through revising unpublished Palsy Aria poems. My biggest find: how many times I sacrificed a difficult to express observation to mediocre language. Rather than take the time to craft the line(s) appropriately, I hurried through, thinking the idea itself would work on its own. Some of this occurred b/c I fell in love with sentence fragments; others b/c I’m just not a great writer. My other realization is that I often used excessive language b/c it sounded pretty rather than adding anything worthwhile to the text. I’m becoming increasingly comfortable with my voice, the realization that I’ll never craft extremely long, lyric poems. I don’t want to write minimal poems, but I do recognize that I’ll write short, terse, (seemingly) disjointed poems without sacrificing language or structure. I hope that difference is clear. I just don't want to have poetry length envy any more.
Anyways, I hope to finish revising the poems by this weekend and then pass them off to my editor (B). I’d like to give each of the poems another round or two in front of editors before deciding which ones to cut and which ones to include from outside material before putting this together in a somewhat finished format.
* * *
Recent additions to my bookshelf: the newest issues of Lungfull!, The Denver Quarterly, Fence, New Ohio Review, and 580 Split. Recent books include Atonement by Ian McEwan and Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism by Daniel Bell.
I’ve only made it through Lungfull! and Fence once, and I enjoyed both. Lungfull!’s poems are, for the most part, fun and whimsical. Wry, witty observations and observational pieces that provide a sharp moment of insight and a chuckle. I’m on the fence about Fence. None of the poems stick in my mind just yet (not usually a good sign), and the zine contains a hefty fiction presence, which means the poetry better be extra good. Sometimes it takes several read-throughs to fully appreciate some poetry, and I’m hoping that’s what happens here. NOR looks like it has a nice mix of traditional and chance-taking work, and I know 580 Split and The Denver Quarterly will push the boundaries a little, so I’m looking forward to settling down with these new issues, especially as I start concentrating on new writing in the near future.
* * *
B is back tonight after two days with her parents.
Golf Wednesday and a scramble Saturday. I’ve had the snap-hooks and club-throws. Needless to say, the club-throws are a direct result of the snap-hooks.
Until next time,
-j
One glass company treated her like a stereotypical woman; needless to say, B was quite upset (re: pissed). The glass technician (let’s give them a high-strung name) said that she would be better off to wait until the glass spidered or at least until next month when her inspection sticker runs out. B insisted that she get it replaced as soon as possible, which was the original plan. The fellow simply restated his position, walked inside, and left B fuming. Glass company two quoted us a price and said they would repair it in our apartment’s driveway. Cool beans, I thought, until they did not call the day of the appointment to confirm when they would arrive. Upon calling them, they claimed that they did not have the adhesive / sealant necessary for the windshield b/c B’s car is new (07 model). If we would run by the dealership and procure the adhesive / sealant, they would be happy to install it. Not that they should be responsible for procuring said product or anything.
Finally, glass company three originally matched the quote of class company two and said they would install B’s windshield tomorrow. However, upon confirming the appointment today, their representative quoted me the original price sans discount (about $60 difference). I stated that I was quote a discounted price; subsequently, I was put on hold for about five minutes only to have the representative state that they could take about $10 off the original price, leaving them $50 higher than my agreed upon quote, and that was as low as they could go. I told them it obviously wasn’t as low as they could go and that I would take my business elsewhere.
Glass company four is scheduled to arrive tomorrow at some point, and they have matched the quote from glass company two. We’ll see what happens. It shouldn’t be this hard to get a windshield installed for a reasonable price.
* * *
As my readership may have surmised, I have finished A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History, which ended on a mixed note. De Landa took more responsibility than most pomo authors by stating that heterogeneity for the sake of heterogeneity is not necessarily the supreme good considering the amount of turbulence caused by radical change. He also provided a nice overview of how the world is becoming increasingly homogenized linguistically, biologically, and culturally. Needless to say, he believes there are many problems with uniformity in these spheres.
My biggest problem, though, was De Landa’s insistence on waving his pomo phallus around by conjuring the Body without Organs (BwO) from Deleuze & Guitarri. Yes, using a phrase like that makes De Landa appear smart, but the currents, matter flows, and intensities he discussed earlier made plenty of sense without the injection of a new phrase accompanied by a painfully abstract vernacular. In some places, it read like a sophomoric attempt to combine geometry with marijuana-inspired philosophy. One of the first lessons I learned in college English was to avoid introducing new material in a paper’s conclusions. While this is a generalization, De Landa’s musings on the BwO were unnecessary and would not have been missed if omitted.
I also managed to start and finish Mao II by Don DeLillo this weekend. Absolutely fabulous fiction, and his observations regarding the voice of terrorism, the human desire for community, and the search for anything to believe in were done masterfully. At first, the book seemed disjunctive at best, but he weaved all the themes – Rev. Moon, terrorism, a reclusive writer’s life, the homeless in NYC, etc. – into one intense, unhappy collage. As much as I love the work of Ian McEwan for pure story telling pleasure, DeLillo succeeds on many deeper levels.
I’m currently reading a book on options trading. I won’t bore you with any reviews.
* * *
I am happy to announce that I’m about ½ way through revising unpublished Palsy Aria poems. My biggest find: how many times I sacrificed a difficult to express observation to mediocre language. Rather than take the time to craft the line(s) appropriately, I hurried through, thinking the idea itself would work on its own. Some of this occurred b/c I fell in love with sentence fragments; others b/c I’m just not a great writer. My other realization is that I often used excessive language b/c it sounded pretty rather than adding anything worthwhile to the text. I’m becoming increasingly comfortable with my voice, the realization that I’ll never craft extremely long, lyric poems. I don’t want to write minimal poems, but I do recognize that I’ll write short, terse, (seemingly) disjointed poems without sacrificing language or structure. I hope that difference is clear. I just don't want to have poetry length envy any more.
Anyways, I hope to finish revising the poems by this weekend and then pass them off to my editor (B). I’d like to give each of the poems another round or two in front of editors before deciding which ones to cut and which ones to include from outside material before putting this together in a somewhat finished format.
* * *
Recent additions to my bookshelf: the newest issues of Lungfull!, The Denver Quarterly, Fence, New Ohio Review, and 580 Split. Recent books include Atonement by Ian McEwan and Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism by Daniel Bell.
I’ve only made it through Lungfull! and Fence once, and I enjoyed both. Lungfull!’s poems are, for the most part, fun and whimsical. Wry, witty observations and observational pieces that provide a sharp moment of insight and a chuckle. I’m on the fence about Fence. None of the poems stick in my mind just yet (not usually a good sign), and the zine contains a hefty fiction presence, which means the poetry better be extra good. Sometimes it takes several read-throughs to fully appreciate some poetry, and I’m hoping that’s what happens here. NOR looks like it has a nice mix of traditional and chance-taking work, and I know 580 Split and The Denver Quarterly will push the boundaries a little, so I’m looking forward to settling down with these new issues, especially as I start concentrating on new writing in the near future.
* * *
B is back tonight after two days with her parents.
Golf Wednesday and a scramble Saturday. I’ve had the snap-hooks and club-throws. Needless to say, the club-throws are a direct result of the snap-hooks.
Until next time,
-j
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
