[Ann Drysdale]

In that case, Ian, why did the Paris Review only publish one poem? If it could not be understood by anyone who was not in a position to take into account the whole body of his work, I mean.

Someone who has taken time and made a real effort to express how a single poem has moved them, related to them, and triggered their thinking, deserves respect. That person has mine.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Julie Stoner

Ooooo, way to lighten a serious discussion with a metaphor of sexual humiliation, Ian! Because it's always amusing when you assume that a guy respects your intelligence and dignity, and then he gets his jollies at your expense. Good one!

I'm with Julie on this one. It's not every day I find myself offended by a rhetorical strategy, but this one was offensive. Not only for the reasons Julie cites, but for many others.

Ian, this is Eratosphere, not reddit or /b. I strongly suggest you reconsider your approach, as well as your post.

Best,

Bill

[Ian Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Julie Stoner

Ooooo, way to lighten a serious discussion with a metaphor of sexual humiliation, Ian! Because it's always amusing when you assume that a guy respects your intelligence and dignity, and then he gets his jollies at your expense. Good one!

As far as I know, "fuck with you" is no longer a sexual phrase, at least in the way I used it. It has to do with joking at someone else's expensive, with trying to pull a fast-one over them. That's how I grew up using it, at least.

Furthermore, for a better understanding of what Seidel tries to do in his poems, I would recommend Michael Robbins' dissertation on Seidel: http://www.postroadmag.com/27/criticism/robbins.phtml.

I think many of the things Robbins brings up here can also be usefully applied in looking at Seidel's "Ferguson" poem. In fact, I find his new poem surprisingly less stringent than a lot of his others, but I respect that, too.

[Ian Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Ann Drysdale

In that case, Ian, why did the Paris Review only publish one poem? If it could not be understood by anyone who was not in a position to take into account the whole body of his work, I mean.

Someone who has taken time and made a real effort to express how a single poem has moved them, related to them, and triggered their thinking, deserves respect. That person has mine.

Sure, she has my respect, too. I did come off too harsh. I just think her reading is flawed because it doesn't take into account Seidel's tongue-in-cheekness, the way he "tells it slant" and the way that his poem is self-inflating. He's not trying to make any grand moralizing claim about the world; his judgments are not to be taken at face value, completely. They're off. It's the writing of someone who is part disturbed, possibly psychotic, insane; at least, such words are not far-off when talking about Seidel. This is his reaction to the world. Trying to "re-read" every line so that it's a nice, plaintive statement about politics in our time just doesn't make sense.

[Stephen Hampton]

"Fuhgeddaboudit": Honestly, I can think of no better word to accurately describe my thoughts concerning "The Ballad of Ferguson, Missouri". After reading this work, seriously, and also reading all thoughts herein, seriously, I remain - Fuhgeddaboudit.

[Marcia Karp]

Here is a call for papers, poems, and other writing -- an opportunity to be a more widely-read part of the conversation about some of the horrors of our time.
Marcia

Special Issue "Hands Up. Don't Shoot: Critical and Creative Responses to Violence Toward Black Bodies in the 21st Century

College Language Association
editor@clascholars.org

The editorial board of the College Language Association Journal (CLAJ) invites the submission of essays, poetry, short prose, short drama, or book reviews for its special issue entitled, "Hands Up. Don't Shoot: Critical and Creative Responses to Violence Toward Black Bodies in the 21st Century." All submitted works must be previously unpublished.

CLAJ welcomes submissions of essays, poetry, short prose, or drama that engage the brutalization of black bodies in twenty-first century America with a particular focus on one or more of the following:

• the militarization of the police
• the criminalization of black bodies
• the intersections between gender, sexuality, and race

Categories

• Essays (18-25 pages)
• Poetry (3 poems; 30 line maximum)
• Short story (1 story; 2500 word maximum)
• Drama (1 play; 5000 word maximum)

CLAJ also welcomes book reviews of the following:

• Koritha Mitchell, Living With Lynching: African American Lynching Plays, Performance, and Citizenship, 1890-1930 (2011)
• Radley Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop: the Militarization of America’s Police Forces (2013)
• Charles E. Cobb Jr, This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible (2014)

Please send all special issue submissions to Dr. Sandra Shannon, CLA Editor, at editor@clascholars.org no later than January 5, 2015

[Jeanne G]

Originally Posted by Ian Hoffman

I think it's hilarious that you think it's so simple to close-read a Seidel poem without unpacking what he has tried to do with his whole body of work: fuck with you.

Ian

Speaking of unpacking, let's unpack some of the b.s. here. This pretty much translates to: you are not worthy to touch the hem of his garment, since you don't know him like I do: (the) fuck with you

Quite bizarre how others can call it glib, flippant and masturbatory and you politely engage w/ them. Since I was an instant fan, I've made the most of a week of insomnia to voraciously read up on Ferguson, on Seidel and his other poems, to get a better feel for him and his overall style. I definitely don't get any vibe of "possibly psychotic, insane". Sounds like something you've regurgitated from someone else's essay. At least I've written my own. But moving on, since that was the 1st installment...

Jeanne

[Marcia Karp]

Originally Posted by Ian Hoffman

I think it's hilarious that you think it's so simple to close-read a Seidel poem without unpacking what he has tried to do with his whole body of work: fuck with you.

Ian

As soon as I read this, I thought that Ian didn't take care to prevent misunderstanding. He isn't cursing anyone. He's saying

... Seidel poem without unpacking what he has tried to do with his whole body of work: what he has tried to do is fuck with his readers.

At least that is what I think he is saying.

I do wonder why poets don't think about every word they write. English is a slippery thing, and even posting here can be a way to learn craft.

Marcia

[Jeanne G]

Marcia, I like your peace maker approach. So I'll assume Ian knows how to use a colon, and your take is the right one, since my initial take would require the use of a semicolon or period.

I recently said to someone: (if you write anything political you’re going to get it from all sides, incl. the one you are siding w/ – it’s a given). Things are humming along as expected then. I'm just glad the discussion gets to continue. Thank you to Anne, Julie and Bill.

Jeanne

[Julie Steiner]

Thanks for the link to the Robbins article, Ian, which I strongly recommend that every interested Spherean read before investing too much more time thinking about Seidel's Ferguson poem.

I am reminded of Hannah Arendt's famous characterization of Adolf Eichmann, one of the organizers of the Nazi death camps, as "not a monster" but "a clown." The banality of evil, indeed.

(If that puts me afoul of Godwin's Law, so be it.)

Unlike--apparently--Seidel, I don't think that the world would be a better place if people had no morality (sexual or otherwise) left to offend.

In the world I live in, the real suffering of real people is not caused by morality, but by the lack of it. And the real suffering of real people is not on the same plane as the fantasized suffering of imaginary family members I might create for aesthetic purposes. Which is one reason why I resist advice to fictionalize my autobiographical poems.

To me, idealism and respect for others seem a far more promising avenue to a better world than desensitizing ourselves to suffering. I'll continue to write poems from that point of view, although it's good to know that The Paris Review won't be particularly interested in them.

***

Ian, as for your dismissing Jeanne's multi-paragraph assessment of Seidel's poem with a throwaway insult...I'm glad that you clarified what you meant.

I was far more steamed by your mocking tone than by the words you used. But while we're on the subject of the words you used....

Yes, Ian, I'm well aware that society has become desensitized to the sex-negative nature of many expressions that get overused to the point of cliché, including the somewhat less-taboo "screwing with you". That doesn't mean that the original sex-negative meaning isn't still there.

I grew up using expressions like "She gypped me," "I managed to jew him down to a lower price," "He hasn't a Chinaman's chance," and the like, which I didn't realize were ethnic slurs until people told me. Not particularly kindly, either. But I'm glad they did, or I'd still be using them. Live and learn.

Surprisingly, the eff-word and other phrases of sexual violence are often used by people who consider sex-negative attitudes in general to be badly out of style, and who pride themselves on their "modern", healthy perspective of sexuality as a non-demeaning thing. And yet, to express even the mildest derision of anything, they mindlessly turn to metaphors that equate the passive role in penetrative sex with defilement and humiliation. Or the active role with violent domination and subjugation of a lesser being.

You'd never guess from some of these folks' favorite idioms that sex can be a mutually pleasurable and fulfilling and empowering thing.

The sex-negative connotations of the eff-bomb aside, I'm always taken aback by the casual deployment of The Big One of taboo words...The Most Insulting Word in the English Language (unless you're a real misogynist and think that a certain synonym for female genitalia is even worse)...in everyday conversation, as if it couldn't possibly offend anyone, or escalate an argument.

Everybody knows that these words carry a charge--otherwise, they wouldn't be so exciting to use. But if we and our friends use them all the time, some of the taboo excitement wears off for us...until we forget about the charge, and innocently walk by a powder keg.

I don't expect to make many converts to the idea that the eff-bomb should be saved for really extreme situations...but I'll keep on evangelizing as long as anyone will listen. And beyond.