repression redux

of course, the poet themself is probably the least likely to note their own repressions. we see it far more clearly in the work of other writers, of writers unlike ourselves (writ large - often a kind of "KEEP OUT") and of those more like-minded (we may even be concerned for them ).

and by repression i am implying something subtle - a poetry lacking any form of repression would be a perfectly enlightened use of language -and while that is out there, for both readers and writers - i think its a lil bit rare. i should add that each reading of a line or poem offers up a new relation to it, so the same reader can have 8 different responses to a text, and even a repressed text can be witnessed as repressive, and if the reader notes that, then why not say "this reading is free of repression". and the multiple subject is quite diff., and to me saner than the often silly notions of the unconscious the surrealists developed, silly, that is, if i am reading their notions of it correctly. but no, i am not surprised at how much sex (and how little labor - wheezly french cafe-hopping artists - try to join the comunist party, eh? sing the internationale - no, no no...) oozed into their exquisite corpses. all i mea to say is "automatic" writing, far from being divorced from culture, simply partakes of it even more whole-hoggedly (or at least w/ a marked difference, but no drop in intensity) , as, perhaps, sara implies in her comment.

but this is probably some kind of la-la land i have drifted into. even the terms are a little strange to me. if you like it, okay. i'm trusting you, please don't fuck up.

and, in case it was unclear, i did indeed mean to expose a strong, if partially unconscious, line of thinking i take on my own work and process vis a vis "out of the blue" work - and to critique its assumptions. i dont think one can write without a subject, or without an ego, for that matter. but they can open onto other subjects, other egos, and then we partake of multiplicity. which can be blinding / overwhelming / exquisite / enjoyable (depending) to read.i would say a partaking in multiplicity is at the heart of the age-old sense of the sublime. it has its own demands, but its liberation is compelling - thinking of work i've done and of having a chance later today to read philwhalen's "Diamond Noodle", a "novel" from 1980.

if i hadn't forgot to bring some lunch money i would even write out the first page, but i did folks, i 'm hungry, wicked hungry, so please pity me in your hardworking and poetic hearts. and speed deliver me a sandwich, if you can.

(and for all those prying eyes, he had a fall, but he's okay, he's healing. my coworker is still quite concerned about him, but he's a serious older chap and we still don't talk. i could be more outgoing here, it would broaden my circle of people to loan a fiver off of).