C.H.U.D.s
 

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/po...case-for-trump

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/20...icle/10840823/

https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/201...ated-his-oath/

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/...to-zimmermann/

Hi Quincy,

May I just say (very sorry!) that I find threads that are started solely with links somewhat irritating. (I haven't read the articles yet so I can't comment at this stage anyway.)

I'd really like to see a few words or views from you first, along with those links. I know I'm not alone in this.

Jayne

Oh, I think the point is obvious--the bow tie-and-goatee conservative crowd, the ones at magazines that will publish metrical poetry, are common xenophobic racist MAGA C.H.U.D.s. (Homophobes in the case of Quadrant, but there's plenty of racism there, too.)

There's a famous discussion by Mengzi of the goodness of human nature. He says that each person, when they see Roger Kimball's face, will feel an impulse to punch it. They might not act on it, but the impulse is there, in all of us, and that is proof that our innate nature is good, however our experiences might come to pervert it.

The point may be obvious to those who click on the links, but I agree with Jayne that it would have been nice to be given a hint regarding what the links were about so we could decide whether it interests us before clicking. The only hint I had was the identity of the poster, which tipped me off that it was likely to involve something being condemned rather than something being praised. Much as I love scorn, I like to know in advance what today's object of scorn may be.

I got de-railed by having to look up C.H.U.D.s. I have now filed them with Bozos, Narcs and Hipsters as part of my Lehrian introduction to the language of now.

During the course of my research I found some interesting videos and a trailer wherein the word "bathroom" was used in a way that I found more conventional from a British point of view (in that the naked lady about to be destroyed by the Powers of Evil was taking a shower rather than a shit) and this interested me hugely.

But I have read all the links, which didn't so much, because I don't know the protagonists as well as, perhaps, I should. Sad about Quadrant, because of Les.

chudliness abounds
 

Anne, you crack me the hell up! And, as an aside, I confess that, although I already knew the meanings of Bozos, Narcs, and Hipsters, I looked up C.H.U.D. in The Urban Dictionary, just to be sure I knew it, and found that, indeed, it simply refers to people who are ugly and stupid.

Anyway, I agree, entirely, about "Quadrant." That piece sickened me, which is sad, because I know that others have published there, and I never knew the journal to be anything but "form-friendly." Thanks for the heads up, Quincy.

Regarding The New Yorker's interview of First Things' editor Mark Bauerlain, I can't say that I'm surprised about anything in the interview except that, well, The New Yorker actually interviewed Mark Bauerlain. While I am aware that many poets whom I know, and respect, regularly publish in this journal, I have always avoided it, in part because I have no material in which I can imagine the editors taking interest, but primarily because I am completely disinterested in any journal whose avowed purpose is "advanc[ing] a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society." That purpose, alone, unnerves me. If one were to try to explain the meaning of this purpose to, say, someone lacking a college degree, I fear that the explanation would at least be very similar to "laying the foundations for a Judeo-Christian society." And if the person looked confused, and shrugged at that, how might the journal's purpose be broken down further? This is pure speculation, of course, but it might be "Working toward a Christian America." While I doubt that the editors would typically lower themselves to that sort of base, fundamentalist Republican rhetoric, does it, honestly, sound like that far of a jump?

More to the point in regard to this article, the fact that Mr. Bauerlain supports Donald Trump primarily as a corrective to oppressive political correctness only adds to my concern. And please note that while I do consider myself an old school liberal, I certainly do not identify with the New Left. In other words, I share at least some of Bauerlain's concern about the somewhat recent phenomenon of certain people, who tend to identify with groups of people, using the tools that have been dubbed "political correctness"--which, used appropriately, can still be used to combat genuine oppression of minorities--opportunistically, merely to gain power for their groups, usually at the expense of identified "enemies"--a topic for another thread. But while I recognize this problem, I also recognize that it was, and is, a predictable problem for any ideology that gains power. For example, Christianity is certainly one of the starkest examples of a potentially helpful ideology that has been abused, in just this way, for about two thousand years. Therefore, I not only disagree with--but in fact, find it insane--to conclude, as Bauerlain does--that a good, and balanced, way, of correcting the problem of the abuse of political correctness is to support a president who is, currently, endangering the lives of countless minorities with his racist policies in, and outside of, this country, and also endangering the lives of everyone within this country with his utter lack of, and apparent contempt for, diplomacy with other countries.

As I feel I have gone on quite enough here, I will leave the two journals about which I did not speak for others to discuss.

Jeff Holt

How about posting a poem?

I have my first readers, Allen.

How about posting a poem?

The last time I did so, Allen, you red-baited me for using the word "comrade" (to refer to Beau Brummell, of all people!), so no thanks.

Like Anne, I got de-railed on C.H.U.D but it led me instead to a terrible/wonderful looking 80s horror movie! (Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller). I love that shit.

As to the original post, I'm not sure I understand the point of it. A lot of right-wing horrible nonsense. Am I supposed to be worried?

Edit: more worried than I already am, that is. What with Trump in the White House, North Korea launching missiles, Islamists putting bombs in tube trains (again). I'm confused.

Yes, Mark - the film with the lady in the shower, and the alternative acronym Contamination Hazard Urban Disposal. That. I have since had a quick check on MAGA, which I might have worked out for myself, given the context.

I am not just being silly here. I am reinforcing Jayne's point. A sentence, even, to flesh out the title, would have helped and saved a lot of embarrassed fumbling for the meaning of the thread, which has the unfortunate effect of trivialising the actual message.

Reading Quincy's reply to Jayne, it seems the main point is that the magazines/journals these articles come from are friendly towards metrical poetry and therefore metrical poetry has an unfortunate association with conservative/right wing ideology. I think. Not being a) published (well hardly) or b) American I'm still missing the nuance. The article about gay marriage is particularly odious though.

Oh well. I'm off to find a bow-tie wearing goateed liberal to prove Quincy's stereotyping wrong. Or maybe a fascist who dresses like something from a Tim Burton movie/early 80s English goth band.

Edit: all in good fun, Quincy, and probably fuelled by envy. I think you're a very stylish gent. ;)

It's true that First Things is a little too conservative-Catholic oriented for my taste, but on the other hand, it's the only magazine that pays real money for poetry whose poetry editor seems to like my work. I can put up with a lot of guff for that.

I published a couple of translations in First Things, and I wasn't then troubled by what I perceived to be a conservative and religious philosophy that I didn't share, but there came a point when I felt they shifted from conservatism as a philosophy I thought wrong, to conservatism that was a rationalization for hateful and thoroughly reprehensible bigotry and intolerance. We all have to draw the line somewhere, and I don't condemn those who draw the line elsewhere than where I draw it, but to my great regret I decided some time ago that I could no longer send them any of my work. It's too bad, since they do publish poetry that has little to do with their hateful agenda, and they do have a large audience, but I don't want to participate in dignifying a magazine whose overall role seems to be justifying bigotry and hatred.

What Roger said. I don't feel I have to share the philosophy of every magazine my poems appear in, but if I am downright appalled with the views being expressed, I would rather go elsewhere. I originally just thought it was a religious magazine, and I have nothing against religion, despite not being religious myself. But reading what was published there (other than the often quite good poetry) put me off. So I stopped sending poetry there.

Susan

What Roger and Susan said. About two years ago, after reading a really horrendous piece in the magazine, I decided to withdraw two poems that already had been accepted. :(

I agree with Jayne, Bob, and Ann. When I see a post containing only links with no clue as to the subject matter, I really can't be bothered to open them. I also feel as though the poster is saying "Hey, I've given you the hoops. All you have to do is jump through them."

(Ha, Mark, that movie came to mind immediately. And never watched it. Maybe it's on a tape with Three Men and a Baby in the closet somewhere.)

WTF is CHUDS?

Am I the only Conservative here? Shame on you all, sheep that you are. As for Les Murray on Quadrant, I do not consider him a racist or a homophobe, though he is a Roman Catholic which probably doesn't endear him to you.

It's probably true that the Left poetry tends to formless drivel. Name me one good poet of the last century on the left? MacNeice I grant you. Auden I don't.

Quadrant have recently accepted a piece by me on Dorothy L Sayers, another papistical person. Dearie me.

Bob Dylan.

What's good poetry is in the mind of the beholder.

The Nobel counts for something. Poetic effect on a great multitude counts even more. One example here.

It was written and recorded in the same year as the killing, in the midst of the struggle. Like much folk balladry and song, the words are supported by the music, but the words carry the message.

— Woody

To stick with English-language Nobel prizewinners for the moment, I think neither Walcott, nor Heaney, nor Brodsky could be claimed by conservatives. Conservatives may have to go back to Eliot and Yeats for the Nobel...
And again, we're sticking to English.

Cheers,
John

NB and thus excluding say George Seferis, Salvatore Quasimodo, or Jaroslav Seifert.

Are you listening to New Yorker podcasts again, Quincy? ARE YOU LISTENING TO NEW YORKER PODCASTS AGAIN, QUINCY??? ~,:^0

Well, there was that bleeding heart Larkin, always crying about the mistreatment of animals or complaining when profits caused a little pollution. "That will be England gone," he wrote, fearing England might not protect enough of it's natural environment. Damned tree hugger!

Come, come, Max. Larkin is not on the left. I would hazard that most people who like animals are on the right. Indeed lefties are always saying that.

Bob Dylan, Woody. You jest. The Nobel prize has been given to the most dreadful people. Have a look and see.N

According to an interview I just read of our own AM Juster, "Richard Wilbur is not a conservative poet. He is a poet from the far left." I think you would agree he was (and is) a good poet.

Wilbur's a poet of the "far left"? He's a New Deal liberal. As were a great many people of his generation. He isn't going around writing the sequel to Louis Aragon's "Front Rouge" or anything like that.

To the American right, that's the definition of "far left," though.

I agree, Quincy, but I think he's liberal enough to be an exception to the Whitworth Rule.

It's times like this I wish we had a like feature here.

That's some top-quality unsubstantiated hazarding John! Ha. What next? Most people on the left prefer cheese and onion crisps to salt and vinegar?

All the best. That shall remain the level of my input on political threads henceforth.

Donald Trump is the first president in recent memory not to have a dog or other pet. I guess he's a secret pinko after all.

Barak Obama was the first president to knowingly eat dog meat, and then write about it in a book.

Oh now I see. John meant to say that liberals don't like the taste of pets. And he's right. Obama didn't care for it.

Has Barak plans to eat the Donald's dog? And then write about it in another book.

You're not paying attention, John. Donald doesn't have a dog. Which of course means he must be a secret liberal, since we liberals can't stand animals.

There is a fundamental flaw in all of this. More and more (approaching the tipping point) Americans are not identifying as left/right/liberal/conservative or forming allegiance with any political party. The millennial mantra, as I understand it, is "issues not ideologies. Individuals not party" or something like that.

In this current world of tumult , throw that into the mix. It is what I think must happen to save politics from itself. Political evolution. Political reinvention. No more parties! No more clubs! Talk issues not ideologies.

I would go out on a limb and guess that John W. has some "left" blood in him. There is some "right " blood in me. I'm pretty sure all of us are a patchwork. The dangerous elements are the swath of both Left and Right that are pathetically doctrinaire.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say there's no correlation between animal lovers and politics. But it's been proven ad infinitum that politics, money and power have some association with each other. And sex is the wild card. Watchdogs needed. Ideologues and Evangelicals. Look out.

[quote=Jim Moonan;402890]

I would go out on a limb and guess that John W. has some "left" blood in him. There is some "right " blood in me. I'm pretty sure all of us are a patchwork. The dangerous elements are the swath of both Left and Right that are pathetically doctrinaire.
QUOTE]

Well said. I'm economically rightist, but socially quite leftist. Even then, internal contradictions and conflicts frequently arise.

A liking of formal verse and a desire to compose it is basically a conservative trait.

Not to say that liberals can also do this well, as exemplified by many Spherians.

But, go to local poetry open mike, and espousers of the most leftist points of view usually can't tell a sonnet from Shinola. Which is a shame, since a good handling of classic form never fails to heighten my appreciation of the speaker. Form adds weight to words and to arguments.

Maybe if what you mean by animal loving is enjoying pictures of kittens or even the company of a companion animal. But if you mean a real concern for animals as subjects that allows that concern to actually question the murderous idea of the dominion of the human species and the legitimization of the use of all other species as the ham-fisted means of "man" then I think you are mistaken.

Unless you are just observing that the tiny spectrum of the mainstream idea that we call these days Left and Right are pretty similar in their complicity to the generalized destruction of the biomes of the world and the normalization of cruelty in agriculture. That there is a thing. But it is not a thing showing the relation of biophilia to political diversity. It is a thing showing the homogenization of the presently filtered options as seen through the non-human eyes looking in on us. It is damning. Not absolving.