Gurlesque

Dear Few Readers,

There is a new anthology I want you to buy. It's called Gurlesque, edited by Lara Glenum and Arielle Greenberg.

The Gurlesque aesthetic is, I feel, the most interesting thing happening in poetry today. It combines in-your-face perversion and aggressive use of syntax with a carnivalesque commentary on what it means to be female today and ever. Now you may wonder why should I care, being a pre-dead white male poet. Well foremost, the dudes are not bringing the game when it comes to sheer imagination, intensity, and complexity these days. A lot of poetry that appears in the mainstream journals is a tad bland, either hearkening back to a type of American plainstyle poetry (with its interest in wit and the everyday sublime) or an over-indulgent self-referentiality that is hip and insincere (not that I have anything against being indulgent or self-referential, just the popular, hip for hipness' sake stuf). The Gurlesque material, however, is what is in the edgier, more captivating journals. Or not. Because some of the stuff in this book is just too hot, too awesome, too "experimental" for most journals to handle.

Secondly, for anyone who is a sexual being, this book is a must. It evocatively explores the erotic politics of the body, of the public glamorized and demonized image, and of what it means to grow up and go through puberty (which is a weirder experience than we care to admit).

I've only just started the anthology, but I am sinking my teeth into it's page-flesh nightly. Poets include Ariana Reines, Brenda Shaugnessy, Matthea Harvey, Danielle Pafunda, and many more. I've read Glenum's crazy-good Maximum Gaga and while none of her poems are in the anthology, her treatise on the grotesque is inside. I'll say more as I get even deeper.

The Content and Form Debate, part 1

OK, on poetics, chumps.

Here's an issue that's been bugging me lately. Why is it that in the workshop environment, some sort of question about form's relationship to content invariably comes up?

Foremost, I feel that it can be a valid question. And secondly, I feel that it is a cop-out that people use to say something about a poem when they have nothing useful to say otherwise.

Here is why it is a valid question:

1. We poets are not just spewing forth disconnected words and bits of syntax. We are arrangers who use things like lines, stanzas, and other more trickstery units to organize bits of language for a given effect. And so questions of form seem to be along the lines of craft questions, which are often taboo when talked about seriously.

2. Content is sort of a bad marker as to the excellence of a given poet. Not what you say but how you say it, right? Right.

Here is why it is a cop-out:

1. The question implies a reductive reading of form based on mimesis. If I am writing about a river, say, does my form need to resemble either in shape or feel a river? That, it seems to me, would be TOO CUTE. And too cute is not what I want my poems to be.

Don't get me wrong, I like when the poem's form matches the emotional context of the poem. But in those case, I feel that the poem, so well-wrought, is a multi-sensory experience that captures the whole person. If the poem is just going to engage me in like bits of sight-games and intellectual cutesiness, then I just as soon read fiction, which I like and which doesn't have any pretensions when it comes to form.

2. Did Shakespeare consider whether the form of the Shakespearean sonnets "matched" the content of said sonnets? Are Berryman's Dream Songs so overdetermined in form so that you can say things like "this form is hiding away the way Huffy Henry is doing the same"? No. That would be simplistic. Yes, the form seems to us appropriate for the subject matter, but it isn't some one-to-one analogy. It is the particularities of the way the poet strings the words together in patterns, organizing it using either traditional or made-up schemes that constitutes forms. But in this sense, form is more like ritual circumstances in speech, i. e. types of rhetoric. Though this poetic rhetoric is different than a rhetoric for "making a point." To develop later, but suffice it to say that the masters used forms a little more complexly than the average workshop goer assumes is possible in poetry.

3. A hundred years ago, poetry was only beginning to break the pentameter and other classical meters and forms. Now that we are in a free form era, we seem to need to overcompensate for what seems like a monumental lack of effort in craft. And so we want all our "forms" to mimic the content of the poem instead of having the two qualities have a dynamic relationship with one another that does not need to be explained by sloppy periphrasis. This goes for both poems in traditional meter, nouveau form, invented this-or-that, or whathaveyou. Presumably, we poets are still toiling away at something, and it wouldn't be worth much, or be that magical, if any schmuck in an MFA program could reduce our form to a simple, narrative sentence or two or try to undermine our craft when our tree poems don't look like trees.

Boo YA!

Ass't 1: Ass't

Assignment: Write an index of imagined (or not) deleted first lines. Bonus points for masochistic display of insecurity & tedium.

Example:

All my boyfriends are waiting

At night I rough myself up under the disgusting

Did you hear the one about the bald moon?

For the throat party I brought my best throat

He asked if my nipples were serious or silly

I dreamt I was a stripper in a David Lynch movie

I have a million boyfriends!

I mean this sexually

My orgasm offended even me

O the dark wetness and how it is dark and wet

Shine on, bald moon!

The fourth wall so opens [metaphor about legs]

The rain is like come

Where’s the fucking Rocky theme?

You can blow on your quanta horn all you want

Your cigarettes are not a source code

Your rhymes are wack

Scholarly Discoveries: Electric Boogaloo

A certain poet who resembles Steve Buscemi sent me on a mad dash for historical resources. The internet yielded up this treasure: Eunuchism Display'd, published in 1718 Charles Ollincan or Ancillon. This thing is absolutely wild. An excerpt:

THERE have been fome Men who have made themfelves Eunuchs through a Spirit of Devotion, believing that by fo doing, they might render themfelves more acceptable to God, and be more capable of working out their Salvation. But as Or£gen was the Chief, the Father, (if I may fo fay,) and the Patriarch of thefe Sort of Eunuchs, it will not be improper, in a few Words, to examine what was the real Motive that induced him to act and think after fo singular a manner.

That's directly from the PDF, where the s's look like f's. Sometimes I love being in grad school. I spent an entire afternoon tracking this manuscript down, and I was able to convince myself that it was work.

BLIND ITEMZ!!!!11one

Which "first lady" of experimental verse had her Adult Friend Finder account hacked when a disgruntled L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poet guessed that her password was "password"?

Until I can get text rolling...

Homemade LOLPoets.