why not flarf?
I like flarf. It relinquishes the reins just a bit. It lets the poet know that this poem is not entirely hers. That there is chance, and in poetry, there is always chance, but flarf puts it out there, admits it from the beginning. Flarf allows the poet to deal with more important things than story telling because that story is, from the beginning, busted up. Flarf is funny and dead serious. Spicer said something about if you write a love poem you have to allow that your love’s ear might fall off.
I haven’t written any of my flarf yet, and it is my flarf, and when it comes it will be mine and I will have invented it. The idea of ownership or lineage in flarf seems to me to be the opposite of my flarf. This is for everyone. I am just glad it is out there.
when I see a poet claim that Flarf is not actual poetry, it makes me question that poet. I would imagine this same thing has been said at every step by people who don’t get what is new, or are frightened by what is new, or a bit of both. I see more of Silliman’s SOQ in this reaction than I have seen in most places.
"Those of you who write actual poetry will probably not be familiar with the term "flarf," and will undoubtedly not find it rewarding to be enlightened on the subject. "
Fuck, that is some stupid shit to say. Amazed that it came out of an otherwise, it would seem, intelligent person’s mouth. And what else came out, well, it seemed to me, a calling out of the Flarf practitioners and people who give (what a dumb ass thing to say) "cocaine-fuelled internet rants". And when they came, mostly Jimmy, there was this tone of well, here are the rabid dogs we warned you about
Thank you gatekeepers.