On 29 Sep 2006 at 23:17, editorblowbackmagazine wrote: I don't know what to make of you. You obviously have some abilities, but you seem also a little scary to me reading some of these poems. I can't help but feel like you fantasize being a killer or something evil. Explain to me why i'm wrong about this. Robert Bohm replies Robert Bohm wrote: Hello, I assume your note below is a serious one, so I'll respond accordingly. You wrote that you "don't know what to make of" me and that although I "obviously have some abilities" you find me and/or my work “scary" and that you feel I spend a lot of time "fantasizing being a killer or something evil." First of all -- yes, I have abilities but, no, I'm not on a mission to either become or promote evil. However, the problem of evil (not as a theological hypothesis but as human action) does exist and I do deal with it in my work (sometimes at a political level, sometimes in other ways) as well as with the violence that often accompanies it. I also focus on another type of violence, the violence of trying to extricate oneself from conditioned consciousness in order to see things more clearly. All of these concerns, as well as aspects of my personal history -- e.g., I'm an army vet from the Vietnam period -- have led me to write a certain type of poetry, one that is both visceral and philosophical and that possesses little respect for the thought products (what is and isn't "good," what is and isn't beautiful, etc.) of many institutions -- e.g., arts bureaucracies, political think tanks, corporate r&d labs, etc. I obviously could be wrong but I think the poems I submitted give more evidence of the concerns I've just mentioned than they do of how I, in your words, fantasize being a killer or something evil. Take "Befriending Jeremy" as an example. It's basically an exploration of clarity that focuses on a meeting between a hippie-style college dropout and a war vet whose realism verges on dysfunction. Maybe I didn't write the poem as well as it could have been written, but I nonetheless remain comfortable taking responsibility for it and acknowledging that it expresses part of my vision, which I do not see as a sick vision but rather as one that gropes toward comprehension. I guess it could be argued that in my attempt not to prettify the vet/young man encounter I end up melodramatizing the emotional violence that's built into the situation. But I don't see it that way. I see it as the only way to honestly portray the event. Of course, the underlying problem in "Befriending Jeremy" as well as in much of my other poetry is the choices I've made over the years about how to make literature. My work is premised on the notion that meaningful communiqués can be constructed from society's "garbage" -- i.e., marginalized people, repressed histories, blighted urban landscapes, the unconscious, etc. Because I pursue this approach without worrying about what readers might conclude about who I am as a person, I tend to make excursions into some places that many (but not all) poets choose not to go. Nonetheless, I recognize that there's no social or literary rule that others must view my writing techniques the same way I do; consequently, there are definitely readers who view my work as repugnant or senseless. Although I'd like to convince them otherwise, ultimately what other people think about my writing is beyond my control except (possibly) through the creation of a large enough body of work that as a result of its size and variety might encourage at least some dislikers to rethink their initial impressions. So I keep writing. And as I do so I remain committed to the notion that I alluded to in the Vallejo poem regarding how there is a real, although usually ignored, dignity of life and _expression in the various outsider cultures all around us. Even in some of my poems which might seem simply maniacal, I don't think they are. The Penn View Hotel poem, for instance, is, among other things, about the potential megalomania of the prophetic voice. At the tail-end of a 50 year period when much U.S. political poetry (from Ginsberg to Doubiago) has employed the device of the Judeo-Christian "prophetic voice" to indict crimes against humanity, I think it's important to show that not only does such a tone have its virtues but that it also can take the form of grandiose self-delusion. I say this not as a hater of the prophetic voice but as one who sometimes uses it but nonetheless wants to view it realistically. Consequently I'm not afraid to evoke, as I did at the end of the Penn View poem, the potentially self-serving/evangelical ways in which this particular tone can be employed -- Enraged, I kick the toppled clerk in the head, stomach, back. Nostalgia's blood leaks between his lips as, on the floor, the Red Sea parts and I walk through triumphantly -- I'm God's prophet. Don't you dare mess with me. One more thing. At the beginning of this note I mentioned that the one of my thematic interests is the violence of trying to transcend conditioned consciousness but I didn't give any examples. One example can be found at the end of the Bykov poem where the woman in the photo is described as having taught Jesus that his divinity began not at the level of an otherworldly or spiritual abstraction but rather in the flesh -- And in the foreground the woman with knuckles the size of a horse's anklebones, she's the succubus who showed Jesus where the god in him began. The way the woman is depicted -- big-knuckled hands, the fact that she's succubus-like (traditionally a night demonness semen-stealer, a wetdream stimulator, a male-strength robber) -- illustrates for me how the truthteller often is at first perceived as ugly/disruptive/evil whereas in fact this apparent negativity is only our projection onto it of our own fear -- a fear reinforced if not entirely produced by status quo values that have been manufactured in order to curtail our range of thought and action. From my perspective, overcoming such conditioning requires a violent wrenching- free from traditional ways of seeing. Then, when we finally adjust to our new way of seeing, our adjustment backfires in at least one way: it leaves us alienated from others who reject our new way of seeing in much the same way that both the power elites and the masses in the western world initially rejected the Copernican revolution because they saw it as unleashing the chaos of a non-God-ordered universe. At any rate, in the Bykov poem's concluding imagery, another important thing is the class character of the 3 people in the photo -- not just the large-handed woman but also the guy with the battered toolbox and the fellow pining for Buddy Holly. There's nothing in the description of these folks that makes them seem like typical dispensers of wisdom, yet it's precisely from this lower/working-class-looking group that one of the poem's key insights comes -- i.e., in how the woman "showed Jesus where the god in him began," in the flesh, in the material world, in history as opposed to outside of history . . . All these aspects of the poem's conclusion are part of the violence of a consciousness throwing off its conditioning. We both know that if a person doesn't like a writer's work, the writer isn't likely to change her/his mind through argument. Still, if people approach each other honestly without trying to get over on each other, I think there's definitely the possibility of deepened understanding. That's all I've tried to do in this email. When I read your note, you seemed to me honestly interested in getting an answer about what I'm up to in my work, so I've tried to give you one, a short one but a nonetheless (hopefully) meaningful one. Robert 1 Oct 2006 at 23:59, editorblowbackmagazine wrote: When I wrote this question to you it was certainly out of curiosity, but I never expressed any certainty as to what was really going through your mind. the poem actually that kind of bothered me was the Penn Hotel one and I just couldn't help but wondering having read that one and the Jeremy one being a little confused as to what actually was the "thought" behind it. perhaps its my fault. lacking perception, but also sometimes writers know what they think but is gets lost to others. I in no way believe in didactic aesthetics, but theoretically you could have a rapist or murderer write an amazing poem in terms of what makes poetry great, and do it from the point of view that rape is good and desirable. while I might be fascinated by the insights of an evil mind and admire the language, I would never feel comfortable advancing or posting such a poem should I ever get one from a penitentiary or wherever. in the Penn poem, I couldn't help but get the feeling I was reading it from a first person's point of view, and then I couldn't help but ask myself "what kind of person am I dealing with here?" I take your word that you are not a killer nor fantasize being one. I would like to post the poems with a sidebar of our little correspondence on this issue. blowback obviously, has a very "open" point of view about poetry content and form, but I get a lot of people submitting that think writing something pornographic, or violent, or "badass" will appeal to me and they couldn't be more wrong. something about the poem has to jump out at me regarding words and all the various attributes of poetry that make something accomplished. as much as I like dark edged content, I am just as happy to post a poem about all the joys and happiness in life, provided that it too meets my criteria of what a significant poem should be. Thanks for your explanation. I feel more satisfied having read it. Robert Bohm reply: Thanks for your detailed response. And yes to your offer -- i.e., "I would like to post the poems with a sidebar of our little correspondence on this issue." When will you post them? One comment. You wrote: "I in no way believe in didactic aesthetics, but theoretically you could have a rapist or murderer write an amazing poem in terms of what makes poetry great, and do it from the point of view that rape is good and desirable. while I might be fascinated by the insights of an evil mind and admire the language, I would never feel comfortable advancing or posting such a poem should I ever get one" . . . I understand and agree with the thrust of what you say but am less certain than you in our ability to identify the poem that's a Trojan horse for murderous consequences. The imprisoned murderer/rapist/kidnapper who glamorizes his/her crime in a submission with a penitentiary postmark is easy enough to spot, but what about the "sensitive" poet who bemoans violence but whose bemoaning is a form of social inertia that celebrates its own emotionalism but that cringes from the alleged stridency of actually organizing against violence (for instance, the violence of the current war) through mass action and/or the writing of full-out socially conscious poems? To me, such artists also -- but not at all obviously so -- promote a message that ultimately weakens our self-protection abilities and therefore has dangerous, even murderous, consequences for others and for us. I'm not trying to go off the deep end here but am merely trying to make the point that while I agree with much of what you wrote I feel the fullness of the problem (of violence against the other) weighs on us in multiple ways that make it far more complicated to fight against or summarize than we'd like. At any rate, thanks again for your reply and please let me know when you plan to post the poems. Robert On 2 Oct 2006 at 20:34, editorblowbackmagazine wrote: Unless I do not understand you you seem to be saying that if an artist does not participate in political Activism in whatever manifestation, or does something socially conscious, he is hence "part of the problem". I do not feel any artist has any obligation at all to participate in any activism at all. If one chooses to do that, that's fine. It’s all a question of what kind of personality you have and the life you want to live. That's democracy by its very nature. I personally admire some artists activism and then think others is absolutely pitiful or even counterproductive. Many artists think that just because they are an "artist" or "famous" this makes them have some kind of validity on something many times they know little about. Jane Fonda in a North Vietnamese pit giggling at anti -aircraft batteries trying to kill Americans is one example that jumps to mind. (I dig Jane by the way) Even if the Vietnam War was asinine and a waste, (it was) that is beyond the pale to show camaraderie with people trying to kill your own citizens, often pawns themselves in some larger struggle. Many artists are embarrassingly ignorant, speaking about politics and any number of other things. Its shameful egotism in my mind. As for their right to do it I don't challenge, it’s what they do and say as to whether I approve or not. As far as socially conscious poetry, if one wants to write it that's great. But I feel a lot of socially conscious poetry is awful beyond belief. I saw a website not long ago, (name will go unmentioned) that specializes in this and while I did not read every poem, I did read enough as to think the site was more like an outhouse than an art museum. It was mostly bad stuff, masquerading with pretension, perhaps good intentions, but that never in itself constitutes accomplished poetry. There are so many ways of writing a poem, that have really little chance of really being socially conscious, and are much greater because of it. Blowback certainly, has many socially conscious poems, but I did not select them at all for that reason. They just happened to be excellent poems in my mind. That's why they are there. Robert Bohm reply: Well, I'll just say this in response: I oversimplified my argument and so I can understand why you wrote what you wrote below. There are more nuances and aspects to all this than I acknowledged and that makes a big difference. As you pointed out, there are factors -- psychological makeup, the need not to throw the baby (the art, the musicality, the whatever) out with the bathwater, and so on -- that influence how one writes, and these things can never be entirely ignored. Nonetheless, I'd like to see more socially consciousness poetry not because I think there's a rule which mandates that poets should be more socially conscious but because I think the paltry amount of decent socially conscious poetry in the U.S. is indicative not just of people's individual psychological leanings or philosophical/cultural interests but of something more widespread, socially rooted and murkier -- the arts' industrialization and mass commodification by arts bureaucracies, university fine arts programs, etc. What's really missing from a lot of writing these days isn't politics but rather a relentless flailing-around in an effort to come to grips with the world in all its amazing -- and sometimes deadly and sometimes inspiring -- messiness. One of the reasons I took your note seriously the other day was because blowback seems to me to have some similar interests while simultaneously recognizing that going nuts and breaking all the rules aren't in themselves enough to produce good writing -- although breaking loose from status quo expectations can indeed be artistically liberating if handled correctly. My own take on such breaking loose, though, is that it usually doesn't happen as the result of a simple decision-making process, but rather comes about, if it does come about, as the consequence of a bunch of life-experiences that for one reason or another traumatize the person and, in doing so, push her/him beyond the standard (i.e., accepted) ways of responding to he world. Of course, even if this happens, it's still a toss-up concerning how well the person will handle the situation. My mind's beginning to wind down. Or maybe it began wound down and has been winding backwards for hours. Have been writing all day, it's almost 1 a.m., time to slow down for the night. I look forward to seeing the poems at blowback. Robert |