Regarding Last Post
I don't know if this is in any way interesting, or compelling or important? I'm not sure it's anything but superfluous? In a larger sense it is important to make art and push back on my presuppositions. In that sense it is useful to write "the strange". It makes the writing have a political situation. If the writing has such a placement, then there is contestation to the larger presuppositions: the ones made before I got here and so on. What I haven't sorted out is the question of art-ifact. The importance my work in my life vs. the importance the work may or may not have in the human community. I have no justifications for the "strangeness" of my poetry but still feel that if I did have one, I might be able to make sense out of such uncomfortable writing. The writing makes me uncomfortable. It isn't easy to read, it isn't emotionally engaging. It is broken, or breaking... it feels as though the language is trying to come undone. How interesting could that possibly be? I really don't think it is... except I have to write like this. If I try . . . no, when I try to write in any other way, it feels a little dishonest and to use a concept re-defined by David Buuck. "I fail". Then again, "I fail" if I write the nutty disjointed poetic xperiment art text. What's the deal?
2 comments:
What's more important than language? And you can't build new aspects of language without breaking old ones. Strange doesn't need justification. Strange is what justifies anything else. But strange is difficult - a lot of people thing strange is easy because they mistake random for strange. Randomness in and of itself isn't interesting, though it often serves as a material to build something strange.
Yo: I write hundreds of articles filled with writing that "succeeds" every month. Yet it is, as you say, "a little dishonest." It's easy to read and it speaks in commoditized desires for travel, peace, love, wealth, understanding, newness, etc. Commoditized being key - this is how we dream in this culture.*
"Easy to read," "emotionally engaging," these are descriptions of a writing that is designed to be eaten up. If you're writing something that you identify strongly with, you don't want it to become a commodity. You don't want to be eaten up, and you don't want your writing to be treated that way either.
How do you not be eaten up, yet still be sought out within the human community? There are people, somewhere out there, who dream in non-commoditized forms - this is the human, writing community you seek out, perhaps. I am bad at giving out names of books you should read, but you should talk to people who are good at that. Maybe this book from Bhanu's class, ZONG! by M. NourbeSe Philips that worried me so much, would be a start (I haven't read it myself, I've just read about it). It is, in its entire concept, designed to be difficult to enter, and that's why it created such a racial stir in her class.
Anyway, I just got a phone call from Lynn about her bookshelf, so got to go. Best of luck with writing!
Marlon
* Of course, this makes me think of the notion of working-class writing. Namely, that working-class people in this culture desire commoditized entertainment to devour, but fail to realize that they, themselves are commodities being used up by the system. Just a thought...
Post a Comment