bored. so i wrote a manifesto which i will post over the next few days. anyone else tired of eric’s crazy ramblings 😉 and want to join this here movement. let me know! and what you think!
THE RECIDIVIST MANIFESTO
“such work is empty”
“each generation requires its own
confession” : herr god, ach mutter : the world
is so dramatically different. “the war is the first and only thing” and is of the magnitude to warrant a new “stance towards reality” and thus a new poetics.
the first tenet of the recidivists is to create a master/student dialectic and to develop a pedagogical approach with the hope of poetic standardization.
“this inadequacy, however, is merely a disguise for other virtues.”
so remember the (1) kinetics of the thing (2) the principle (3) the process
so i have “set down a brief list of tenets to which the poets contributing to it mutually agreed. I do not mean that they pledged themselves as to a creed. I mean that they all found themselves in accord upon these simple rules…”
the second tenet of the recidivists (dont dare call it recidivism) is that poetic shifts are historically determined – i.e. the war on terror marked the end of language poetry (and its second generation) and understanding that the next great war will end the recidivist project we must act INSTANTER if verse now, 2005, “if it is to go ahead, if it is to be of essential use, must, I take it, catch up and put into itself certain laws and possibilities…”
the third tenet of the recidivists is to adopt a dichotomy. You can either choose from a precedence: pure/impure, practical/holocaustal, receiving/conceiving, projective/non-projective, open/closed, free/organic, imagist/symbolist, objective/subjective, determinate/indeterminate, narrative/non-narrative, quietism/post-avant
(criminal (habitual (reversionist
(or what you and even a french critic
might call the public-soul-at-any-private-wall)
the fourth tenet of the recidivists is to reject something. this works most well after establishing a dichotomy. the rejection of NON-recidivistism “sounds judgmental, which is a little misleading – though only a little…
Nevertheless, whatever the pleasures, in a fundamental way [NON-recidivistism] is a fiction – one of the amenities that fantasy or falsehood provides. What then is the fundamental necessity for [recidivistism]? Or, rather, what is there in language itself that compels and implements the rejection of [NON-recidivistism]?”
these questions never cease threatening the world.
[also, we reject symbolism] [and Eliot] [and Levertov’s later work]
MORE TO COME:::::STAY TUNED:::::