I love Sarah Schulman! Her novels read as though written by a poet, except there are actual plots. I recommend her books to everyone. Beautifuly written, mostly about New York in the 80's, the rise of AIDS, lesbian relationships, gentrification of the Lower East Side. Amazing language in them.
Thanks for all the links, Juliana. I guess a lot of these poets that you reference seem obviously political to me. I am interested in everyone's opinions on some of the not-so-obvious, maybe-not-at-all writers. For example, since Romney brought her up, Lisa Jarnot. Yes, her new book has a section called "My Terrorist Notebook," with lines like "I would have had to blow up the World Trade Center to get anyone's attention when I was a kid. I'm tired of being nice. Nice is out. I want to live in a cave with Osama and sleep on the floor of the cave." (I think I just guaranteed that the FBI will be reading our blog!)
Now, does using this language really do anything good? When I read it I definitely sense a tongue-in-cheek tone that seems to make fun of the whole terrorism situation. Meaning, I guess, that, uh, our government is bad. Right? So because it's referencing this language of the news, it's political. Could you argue that it's ONLY using the language of the news and not saying much about it? You could, I think.
But anyway, as far as I know this is the first time she's published work that is so "directly" political. There are poems dedicated to Dick Cheney, George Bush, etc. So sure, they're political. But what about her work before this? And what about the "Black Dog Songs" section of the book? I know a lot of you have read "Sea Lyrics"--is it political? I don't think so. Now for the second question: is that kind of "Sea Lyrics" work doing harm? Is it on the side of the system? And if not, why not?
About these Brutalistes Nouveau. Specifically, I guess, the "Involuntary Vision" anthology that Juliana blurbed and a lot of us read in Stephen's class. Same questions as the Jarnot. Are these poems political? (I can see the argument that maybe they are a group of people trying to help each other get published and, uh, that that's political because they're not "mainstream" and, uh, they're trying to challenge the canon. Or something.) And if they aren't political, are they hurting the situation? And if they're not doing harm & they're not political, what good are they doing? There still might be some good. But what is it?
Thanks for all the links, Juliana. I guess a lot of these poets that you reference seem obviously political to me. I am interested in everyone's opinions on some of the not-so-obvious, maybe-not-at-all writers. For example, since Romney brought her up, Lisa Jarnot. Yes, her new book has a section called "My Terrorist Notebook," with lines like "I would have had to blow up the World Trade Center to get anyone's attention when I was a kid. I'm tired of being nice. Nice is out. I want to live in a cave with Osama and sleep on the floor of the cave." (I think I just guaranteed that the FBI will be reading our blog!)
Now, does using this language really do anything good? When I read it I definitely sense a tongue-in-cheek tone that seems to make fun of the whole terrorism situation. Meaning, I guess, that, uh, our government is bad. Right? So because it's referencing this language of the news, it's political. Could you argue that it's ONLY using the language of the news and not saying much about it? You could, I think.
But anyway, as far as I know this is the first time she's published work that is so "directly" political. There are poems dedicated to Dick Cheney, George Bush, etc. So sure, they're political. But what about her work before this? And what about the "Black Dog Songs" section of the book? I know a lot of you have read "Sea Lyrics"--is it political? I don't think so. Now for the second question: is that kind of "Sea Lyrics" work doing harm? Is it on the side of the system? And if not, why not?
About these Brutalistes Nouveau. Specifically, I guess, the "Involuntary Vision" anthology that Juliana blurbed and a lot of us read in Stephen's class. Same questions as the Jarnot. Are these poems political? (I can see the argument that maybe they are a group of people trying to help each other get published and, uh, that that's political because they're not "mainstream" and, uh, they're trying to challenge the canon. Or something.) And if they aren't political, are they hurting the situation? And if they're not doing harm & they're not political, what good are they doing? There still might be some good. But what is it?
<< Home