Reading and thinking about this post on Silliman's Blog about the body in writing, procedural work, Langpo and Oulipo.
Why always leap from body to erotic. Not all bodies are amatory always.
When I think of bodies in language poetry, I don't usually think of them erotically. Maybe I just don't find langpo sexy. (I guess that begs the question of what kind of poetry I do find erotic).
I could go back to grad school and write a whole dissertation about erotic bodies in Language Poetry. I'd rather UCSD actually start an MFA program, though. Then I could get an MFA and pretend that would help me get better adjunct work.
As you may have noticed, this post is not an essay.
I'm not prepared to back up this statement, but the eroticism almost seems like a sense of duty--and here I'm mostly thinking of Silliman's Under Albany--so that hardly represents all of Langpo, I know.
I do need to get a hold of Carla Harryman and Lyn Hejinian's collaboration, The Wide Road.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
my email response to a cathy manuscript said something about how it was erotic. I will take the unusual step of quoting my email:
"Also I think it helps me understand the writing a little if I think of it as erotic. I don't really know what erotic means, and I'm not trying to be all erotic by saying the word erotic, or anything like that. I dunno it's just the surfaces and joints, mechanics and interiors/exteriors of the language. it's a lot of metal things. or not all metal but made in shops."
Erotic means that something is happening that pertains to sexual desire or love, or it arouses thoughts of sexual desire. I could be flexible and say that it could point to something sensuous. But I think erotic is closer to erogenous then sensuous.
So, I tend not to connect erotic to metal things or things made in shops, but it's possible, of course.
Post a Comment