Ginnesburg is not dead, I think.
A sad sad sad sign of the times:
he is writing email titles
for the smut peddlers
Strange lines, soaring lines,
devised to sweet talk their way
past my firewalls:
Sperm anchorer cloaked at night
train swims into the tunnel too small
running leapfrogs sheepdogs
argot orb midnight juggler dance
There are lessons in this that I quite like.
Poetry is everywhere
Inescapeable.
In the last place it has any right to be.
Like a weed. Or a nun. Or a two year old.
I am, however, put off.
By the way it has been finally spelled out,
The mouse has let the cat out of the bag:
Sex lies one click beneath our words.
Tags: Allen Ginnesburg, email, pornography, spam
June 26, 2008 at 7:30 pm
…and perversion just another below that…
June 26, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Jane, perhaps your line should be the last line in the poem. You are quite right.
It’s kind-of a dilemna. Because I totally agree with you. Perversion is just beneath it all.
I was trying to be morally neutral about the whole thing, and more just thinking about the fact that some of those smut email titles end up sounding so poetic…
I’m not sure if it’s helpful to write this way, though: on the one hand it’s quite boring to read moralistic writings. On the other hand, it’s probably wrong to stay quiet about things like this.
June 28, 2008 at 10:41 pm
it can also be incredibly thought provoking and life changing to read moralistic writings… and if you stay morally neutral, you give the idea that you aren’t opposed at all. Don’t be neutral, NEVER be neutral… and never be quiet either!!
June 29, 2008 at 1:23 am
Hmmmm.
You’ve generated some thought in me tonight.
I guess that one of my thoughts is that sometimes a writer makes a greater moral point by not being obvious, and I guess maybe there’s some distinction in my own brain between “moralastic” and “moral.”
I totally agree that we should never be immoral. But to me, moralastic is when we’re obvious, when we make it easy.
On the one hand, somebody could read this poem and think that I’m approving of pornagraphic emails. By not going out of my way to condemn obvious porgnography, I mantain some of the point I wanted to make. This point is that there is a sort-of hidden pornography, a sexuality that runs deep in places that we don’t normally look.
I might not have made the point very well, but what I was trying to say in the last four lines is this:
If some famous poet (Like Ginnesburg, for example) starting working for the pornography industry, it would blow the whistle on a something that people tend not to notice: sexuality is already so present in lots of poetry.
In the poem I assumed the voice of a speaker who’s actually annoyed that this has been “made public”… so as I write this I have to assume that some people will mistake me, the writer with the speaker of the poem. Some people will think It’s me (the writer, not the speaker) complaining that the sexual nature of poetry is out in the open.
However, in writing this poem I’m actually the one who’s drawing the reader’s attention to it; my role as writer is actually contradicted by the words of the speaker.
(Is this all egg-headed rationalization or does it make sense?)
July 1, 2008 at 2:25 am
huh? You lost me at … um… well, it was somewhere back in the beginning. But I did hear that there is a difference between moral and moralistic. Linguistics is fascinating, the semantics and the written word vs the spoken word, facial expression and body language etc. Sexuality is present in our own Bible, in the very word of God. Perversion and pornography should not be confused with sex… or the gift that sex is meant to be. But your underlying message I believe was simply how pornographic sex can become poetic almost… a sign of our societies numbness to “wrong” and “sin” and “offensive”… which is a sad perversion in itself, no?
July 3, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I understand where you’re coming from. One of the underlying message that I was aiming for, though, was “Poetry is everywhere, even in the title lines of emails meant to entice people into pornographic sites.”
A second thing I was trying to say is “There can be a sexual subtext to lots of things that appear not to be about sex.”
In that last comment, I think what I was trying to say is this:
Sometimes a writer makes a point in literature by having a character who speaks the truth. Think Aslan in the Narnia movies.
Other times a writer makes a point by having a character speak things which we know are lies.
So in this poem, I spoke from the perspective of somebody who claims to be upset because the whole email thing makes it clear that there is a sexual subtext to things.
I can understand why somebody would think that I (the writer) was complaining about that.
In that last comment, I was trying to say though, that if I agreed with that character, if I wanted to keep it a secret that there is this sexual subtext to things, then I would not have written a poem about the fact that there is a sexual subtext to things.
I didn’t write this with all this in the front of my brain. I wasn’t on a crusade, or anything. But it was there. (Just for the record this is a slightly revised version of a poem I wrote a bunch of years ago.)