Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Curmudgeons abound, and they do have their charms. "Why aren't we talking about Ondaatje or Milosz..." Maybe we are, Professor, but if you want to simply ignore a whole thread of contemporary poetry, I guess you'll never know that... What am I on about? I am referring to the responses to Flarf in the Toronto Star this week.

I don't think the arrival of one discourse displaces another. I don't see this as an either/or. I think new discourses, such as Flarf, enrich discourse, even if by making one more in love with what one was already in love with. Maybe in love in a more complicated way. Bring it on. Here's how the piece in the Star ends:
Toronto's poet laureate, Dionne Brand, says poets from every period have used the material of the day, from "cave walls to digital walls."
"Whether one mines daily life or physical texts or digital texts, one still has to choose," Brand wrote in an email. "The choices are interesting, or not, and whether they are interesting is what makes the poem."


Paul said...

After all these years and the thousands of words written on the internet and elsewhere, would you still call talking about Flarf (a very simple process) "a new discourse"? Most of the 'discourse' is just constant repetition of what it is (yes yes we know) and internet beatup attention grabbing. In my humble opinion.

Lemon Hound said...

The point is, talking about poetry is always a way to talk about poetry.