just noticed Romney saying: "does this political poetry have to answer a particular question, or does it have to address a specific cause or incident? Can one write, as I often do, about the interests of motherhood in relation to the larger world, lets say...and call it political."

no. there would be range of questions.

then yes to second one. people do second one all the time. (ask barbara guest about that one...) but there are people who will argue with that.

on jessea's questions... urgh. what i actually mean to say is that i think these questions can't be avoided b/c even when they are avoided, they are answered. or the old reasoning that one can't say one's work doesn't have anything to do with politics b/c to say that is to have a very specific politics.

sometimes i write more dogmatic than i mean.

i confess though that i sometimes get tired with people who say well i write fractured language and that is way political.

when i was reading the quotes from mayakovsky in class and romney said do you believe that and i sort of dodged answer, i thought later well the answer is that i like to think about things like that. i find it productive. but i don't expect everyone will. the mayakovsky (which will be on reserve shortly) is a relief to me.

i've asked lisa if she wants to weigh in on terrorism poems. she might.