maybe we should ask Lisa Jarnot about this.
i saw her read these at zinc bar in nyc at 9/11 when it was hard for anyone in nyc to say anything that wasn't angry about 9/11 and thought they were very amazing. or they were saying difficult things that were hard to say. or were trying to articulate a very difficult feeling of how to exist in nyc after 9/11 w/o just saying either reactionary things (bomb afghanistan) or pathetic lefty things (oh dear...). it was hard in nyc at time to get anyone to say well there might be something to think about american privilege here. i had sometime around same time been to see judith butler in very big talk at cuny and she had said something like queer theory now more than ever (ok; massive cartoon version) and i was so confused by how queer theory was going to help me understand what was going on at the time. and i thought that these poems were at least trying to begin to enter.
i can't imagine thinking sea lyrics is doing harm. how would it be on the side of the system?
as i understand NB, i don't think the political is very much a concern in that work. but those with deeper NB relations should answer.
what if it is more like this: there is a really wide range of possible poetic subject and form. a really wide range. a range that is probably wider at any other time in history just because publishing possibilities expose us as readers to more forms. and so you have to read around and think about what you want to say is worth reading, what is worth your time, what helps you to think in new ways, and what does not. what if this is what the political debate is about? (instead of saying yes and no to various works.) and what if different people find this rethinking in different sorts of forms? aren't we just lucky that there are a lot of possibilities out there?
i saw her read these at zinc bar in nyc at 9/11 when it was hard for anyone in nyc to say anything that wasn't angry about 9/11 and thought they were very amazing. or they were saying difficult things that were hard to say. or were trying to articulate a very difficult feeling of how to exist in nyc after 9/11 w/o just saying either reactionary things (bomb afghanistan) or pathetic lefty things (oh dear...). it was hard in nyc at time to get anyone to say well there might be something to think about american privilege here. i had sometime around same time been to see judith butler in very big talk at cuny and she had said something like queer theory now more than ever (ok; massive cartoon version) and i was so confused by how queer theory was going to help me understand what was going on at the time. and i thought that these poems were at least trying to begin to enter.
i can't imagine thinking sea lyrics is doing harm. how would it be on the side of the system?
as i understand NB, i don't think the political is very much a concern in that work. but those with deeper NB relations should answer.
what if it is more like this: there is a really wide range of possible poetic subject and form. a really wide range. a range that is probably wider at any other time in history just because publishing possibilities expose us as readers to more forms. and so you have to read around and think about what you want to say is worth reading, what is worth your time, what helps you to think in new ways, and what does not. what if this is what the political debate is about? (instead of saying yes and no to various works.) and what if different people find this rethinking in different sorts of forms? aren't we just lucky that there are a lot of possibilities out there?
<< Home