A Patriotic C.I.A. Employee at Work

[WolfLarsen]

A Patriotic C.I.A. Employee at Work
A poem by Wolf Larsen
First I butcher all the dogs & cats in your house and I shove them in your mouth, then I grab you and throw you in the frying pan and I cook you in the blood of your own family members, then I shove buses and city streets up your ******* while I drink beer made out of your very own melted skin, I place you in a tiny jail cell filled with millions of cockroaches squirming all over the walls while I play Stockenhausen 24 hours a day REAL LOUD, then I chop off the arms & legs of all your friends as you watch and then I starve you for days until you’re so hungry you’re devouring the limbs of your very own friends, then I change the music to a sweet Mozart concerto and as Mozart plays I s… l… o… w… l… y… slice off your testicles while your children watch, then as you bleed you watch as I sell off your children to a lifetime of slavery to the highest bidder, I then carve up your wife into an abstract sculpture while you listen to her screams, then I slice off your ears and eat them while you watch, I begin peeling off the rest of your skin and turn it into fondue – it tastes so sweet… then I smile at you because I’m your friend
Copyright 2007 by Wolf Larsen

[Delta40]

Wow! If you ever wanted to convey the public's horror toward 'Enhanced Interrogations' this is it!

[MorpheusSandman]

Yeesh... reminds me of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. I laughed at the Stockhousen reference, as I rather like him but understand how he can be grating to a lot of people.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I found this to be a highly unattractive exercise in self-indulgence which had the effect of making me want to come to the defense of the CIA!

[hillwalker]

You obviously got a kick out of writing this - but I'm not sure what any readers are meant to gain from being subjected to such a barrage of unpleasantness. Too grotesque to be considered remotely ironic.

H

[WolfLarsen]

Prince Myshkn -however you may feel about my writing it is absolutely disgusting that considering all the horrible things the CIA has done that somebody would come to their defense. Obviously, there's something in your politics. I strongly defend your right to hate my writing. In fact, if you have something intelligent to say I wouldn't even mind if you insulted my writing, that is if you had something intelligent to say.

Hill Walker - think of the thousands of people that died in Chile in 1973 because of a coup d'état that was sponsored by the CIA. Many of them were tortured. Also think of the schoolteachers who were murdered by CIA-sponsored religious zealots in Afghanistan during the Cold War. Many many people were tortured in Latin America by dictatorships who came to power with help from the CIA. And believe me our government is involved in torture throughout the world. What happened in the prisons in Iraq with American personnel torturing Iraqis happened to come to light, but think of all the times that that kind of thing didn't come to light.

Everyone is entitled to hate my writing! And I strongly defend their right to do so! But the CIA is disgusting, it is revolting, and this poem doesn't even begin to describe the horrors that the CIA represents to people who have been tortured or killed.

Sandman - you like Stockhausen! Wow! I love virtually every 20th-century classical composer except for Stockhausen. However, he is a great inspiration, because the arts should not always be pleasing. Sometimes the arts need to be disturbing. And Stockhausen is probably a great composer, it's just that I'm too biased against him to admit his greatness.

I think Delta made an excellent point about so-called enhanced interrogations. It is torture plain and simple. Our government is involved in torturing people abroad. But our government is also involved in torturing people right here in the USA. On the Southside of Chicago where I was born and raised the police used to torture black men in police stations all the time.

I think one of the greatest faults of this poem of mine is that it's not strong enough! People are being tortured all over the world. You might feel that the poem is too strong until you're being tortured yourself. Then you might think the poem is too weak!

[Delta40]

I read it as an emphasis on the hypocrisy of the West when it comes to defending human rights. I saw a doco recently where somebody said we must ask ourselves if we feel any safer in the world because the West is engaging in torture and the answer is definitely no. Torture of others as a means to an end is therefore untenable.

I think it is one of the most powerful statements I have heard.

[WolfLarsen]

There's also something I want to add, and I'm probably more guilty of this than most people, sometimes literature just doesn't reflect enough how horrible the world is we live in! I think Charles Dickens and others like him did a great job in exposing the world for what it is. However, many of us writers are guilty of ignoring the real world and living in a fantasy world where we write our masturbations or paint our masturbations. It's pathetic! And I'm more guilty of it than any other writer I know of!

It's fine to write plenty of frivolous stuff. And a lot of my stuff is frivolous. But it's pathetic how precious few pages of my literature reflect the horrors of the world we live in! Sometimes great literature has to be unpleasant because the real world is extremely unpleasant! {edit}

Delta made an excellent point about the hypocrisy of America's position in the Middle East. I wonder if the wave of protests throughout the Middle East is going to affect contemporary literature.

[Delta40]

Poetry is a language though Wolf and speaking a language which the world will understand is no easy challenge. I'm often surprised at the inferences others draw from my work. The subversive messages which trickle through without my knowledge. It makes it impossible for me to ever fully understand what I am saying and no way of controlling what others will make of it.

[Jerrybaldy]

I liked your comments on writing masturbations. By making the poem horrific in its content made it no less masturbatory. The pain inflicted upon man by man is hardly topical its omnipresent through out history and I doubt anybody thinks it has disappeared. To write of anything else is barely pathetic unless all written on every other subject through out history is also so.
It is a poem of mutilation. It is not a comment on the middle east. It is just violence, which is just fine, naked, not dressed up in pretentious clothes.

[Delta40]

You should watch The Wind That Shakes the Barley.

[qimissung]

Reminder: Discussion of politics is not allowed on this forum.

[MorpheusSandman]

Sandman - you like Stockhausen! Wow! I love virtually every 20th-century classical composer except for Stockhausen. However, he is a great inspiration, because the arts should not always be pleasing. Sometimes the arts need to be disturbing. And Stockhausen is probably a great composer, it's just that I'm too biased against him to admit his greatness.FWIW, I think Stockhausen thought he was greater than he was, but I think his stuff is quite intriguing, and even better when it gets into the hands of artists who set it to something else. The Quay Brothers' In Absentia (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm15d_in-absentia-thequaybrothers_creation), which was scored by Stockhausen, is one of the best short films I've ever seen. It's one of those films like 2001:ASO where the power comes from the marriage of images and music, and it made me realize that Stockhausen was an incredibly "cinematic" composer in general. When I listen to him my mind almost always conjures up strong imagery.

I'm not much for politics myself, but I will say that it is necessary sometimes to try and portray the evils and grotesqueness of the world through art. I think the problem is that art always aestheticizes life, even when it's at its ugliness. So many socially conscious artists in a variety of mediums have been forced to confront the inability of their work to really "change" things in any direct manner. At best, art can provoke us to think about things and then, perhaps, work to change them ourselves. But it takes a lot for art to reach people on that profound a level. For it to do that I tend to think it's necessary for it to connect with people first and not give them a chance to flinch away before they get involved. In that respect, I think this piece repulses people so they can just turn away in disgust before you really get them involved. You mention Dickens, and it's worth considering how much care Dickens took of establishing his characters and their settings before he really dug into the harshest elements of reality.

[hillwalker]

I read your response to my response with interest. Your abhorrence of cold-blooded inhumanity is there for all to see - BUT it's not there in your 'poem'. Which was the point I was making. The attempt to shock is so heavy-handed that most readers will prefer to look away - when, of course, we should be subtly forced to look closer.

I agree with your sentiments 100% (and spare me the lecture) but I'm not particularly fond of the way you expressed them.

H

[IceM]

Everyone is entitled to hate my writing! And I strongly defend their right to do so! But the CIA is disgusting, it is revolting, and this poem doesn't even begin to describe the horrors that the CIA represents to people who have been tortured or killed.


I think one of the greatest faults of this poem of mine is that it's not strong enough!

This "poem" is revolting.

I find nothing poetic in it. Your tour de force of continually revolting images is downright disgusting. Nothing in here enthralls me. Nothing in this seemingly exaggerated account of interrogations compels me to read further--why I did only accounts for my insistence on completing all that I choose to read.

If your intention is to shock the reader with the CIA's torture techniques, your "poem" is shocking enough for a large majority of readers to dismiss your work after the initial images. Later reflections may seem as if your appeal to pathos became bathos.

Torture is inhumane, I agree. Yet writing about an inhumane topic is no excuse for a writer to succumb to similar depths of artistry. And if you insist on going further, perhaps you'll push away even more readers.

I totally agree with your intention. I wholeheartedly disagree with your style in contesting it.

[Delta40]

Yes one does want the horror of the poem to have a point but it is possible that any repulsion felt here will make torture look like a walk in the park. I think reading your passionate responses on the topic demands that you find a way to contain the horror and disgust in such a way that rather than bursting out onto the page, it lurks like a shadow behind us as we read.

[aliengirl]

The poem is grotesque but it mirrors truth and truth is often "revolting". I agree with Delta's view posted above that one must find a way to present it in more sophisticated style. Until then it is better to present it crudely than not to write at all.

[MorpheusSandman]

I honestly think the extreme reactions to this are closer to being indications of its good quality rather than arguments against it. Perhaps it's because I'm well aware with the very old aesthetic device of creating grotesque and revolting art to match grotesque and revolting elements of life, but I wasn't particularly shocked by it. I don't subscribe to the notion that we should necessarily temper grotesque art in a more sophisticated or refined manner. If anything, Shakespeare's technical talents makes Titus Andronicus all the more ridiculous and revolting. If anything, what I think is needed is a tempering of tone and emotion. Reading this piece is a bit like subjecting an unexpected person to an Anal Cvnt (real band) album at full blast before you've had time to prepare them. If you can pull an audience in first and THEN revolt them you've accomplished something, like Gasper Noe's Irreversible.

[hillwalker]

I honestly think the extreme reactions to this are closer to being indications of its good quality rather than arguments against it.

Good quality as in successfully generating a response - yes. But surely the response the writer was after is not the one he's got.

One almost gets the feeling he's relishing the opportunity to list as many grotesque activities as possible - then to excuse his self-indulgence by adding that they were actually put on display here for humanitarian reasons.

Again - I get the message, but fail totally to appreciate the means by which it was conveyed.

H

[AuntShecky]

A Patriotic C.I.A. Employee at Work
A poem by Wolf Larsen
First I butcher all the dogs & cats in your house and I shove them in your mouth, then I grab you and throw you in the frying pan and I cook you in the blood of your own family members, then I shove buses and city streets up your ******* while I drink beer made out of your very own melted skin, I place you in a tiny jail cell filled with millions of cockroaches squirming all over the walls while I play Stockenhausen 24 hours a day REAL LOUD, then I chop off the arms & legs of all your friends as you watch and then I starve you for days until you’re so hungry you’re devouring the limbs of your very own friends, then I change the music to a sweet Mozart concerto and as Mozart plays I s… l… o… w… l… y… slice off your testicles while your children watch, then as you bleed you watch as I sell off your children to a lifetime of slavery to the highest bidder, I then carve up your wife into an abstract sculpture while you listen to her screams, then I slice off your ears and eat them while you watch, I begin peeling off the rest of your skin and turn it into fondue – it tastes so sweet… then I smile at you because I’m your friend
Copyright 2007 by Wolf Larsen

Uh, Have a Nice Day!
:rolleyes:

[Cunninglinguist]

The content is so ridiculous it seems like the author is just projecting some personal grievance onto the government instead of even trying to present a legitimate reason to persuade the reader to detest the CIA. Indeed, for forcing all this gore on the reader he walks away detesting the author, which is ostensibly contrary to the author's intent and, in that respect, fails as art.


Shakespeare's technical talents makes Titus Andronicus...

The great majority of critics either reject Titus altogether on the grounds that its style and subject are so unlike any other of Shakespeare's works, or they accept the tradition of Ravenscroft, who altered the play in 1687 and said that Titus was not by Shakespeare's hand but that he had given it some "master touches" to a couple of the main parts or characters. In any case, if Bill wrote it, its importance only lies in the biographical information that it lends us - it would represent years of a violent youth (Titus would be his fist play, written in 1588-90) before Shakespeare found his true self, juxtaposed to Romeo and Juliet representing his transitional years, and Hamlet, the zenith of his maturity as a writer. But, in short, Titus is not regarded as a very good play by critics - moreover, it's not in a style indicative of Shakespeare - and probably shouldn't be represented as unequivocally his.

[MorpheusSandman]

The great majority of critics either reject Titus altogether on the grounds that its style and subject are so unlike any other of Shakespeare's works, or they accept the tradition of Ravenscroft, who altered the play in 1687 and said that Titus was not by Shakespeare's hand but that he had given it some "master touches" to a couple of the main parts or characters. In any case, if Bill wrote it, its importance only lies in the biographical information that it lends us - it would represent years of a violent youth (Titus would be his fist play, written in 1588-90) before Shakespeare found his true self, juxtaposed to Romeo and Juliet representing his transitional years, and Hamlet, the zenith of his maturity as a writer. But, in short, Titus is not regarded as a very good play by critics - moreover, it's not in a style indicative of Shakespeare - and probably shouldn't be represented as unequivocally his.Most of the arguments I've read against Shakespeare's primary authorship of Titus seem firmly rooted in a biased dislike for the play. I am aware of the various studies that found it likely George Peele wrote a portion, but the only sections that crop up consistently are Act I and a single section from both Act II and Act IV. It's as if people think it's so bad that they convince themselves that it couldn't possibly have been written by Shakespeare. But Shakespeare has a few real oddities in his oeuvre, and Titus just happens to be one of them. However, it should be noted that critics have begun to reconsider its quality in the second half of the 20th Century, with a few concluding that it's the ultimate Shakespeare play that speaks to the atrocities committed in our time. But I always liked the interpretation that it was as much a parody on tragedy as a tragedy in itself, like a classical predecessor to Chan Wook-Park's Revenge Trilogy, which are too exaggerated to be accepted as genuine tragedy, but not ridiculous enough to be a pure parody. They walk the thin line between both. I actually admire the play more after seeing Julie Taymor's phantasmagoric film production, which I think nailed down its ambiguous tonal qualities.

[Cunninglinguist]

I don't think that Titus is regarded more highly because we've somehow become more open minded - criticism in the latter half of the 20th century has been mostly dedicated to over-inflating minor issues and otherwise garbage literature because critics and grad students have run out of things to write about. In another post JBI has propounded this idea - "simply put, English departments are too big, and English Ph. D.s to numerous, so it became fashionable for trends to emerge - for instance, the Showalter followers who decided to just look for any female who ever penned a verse. What that did really was just to broaden the Canon for a couple of decades, with, other perspectives such as post-colonialism coming in, bringing more topics to discuss. . . . I had an Edmund Spenser specialist explain that the amount of writing on him was never more numerous than in the past 50 years, but what it did was just to focus people's attention to other aspects of his work - mainly his colonialism, rather than the structuralist readings that dominated before." This just so happened to be in a thread about the recent censorship of the n-word in Huck Finn, perhaps one of the most pertinent testaments to the over-inflation of minor issues in literature. Moreover, consider that the Wikipedia article on Titus is longer than the Wiki article on Hamlet (and the authorship question receives its own article) - but even though it seems to be receiving so much more attention would you really argue that Titus is a superior play? No, that would be quite retarded.

Perhaps it was written by Shakespeare (I'm not denying that possibility, but, again, probably shouldn't be represented as unequivocally his) or it was coauthored by Shakespeare and Peele (likely), but it's still wanting for the artistic merit (and "technical talents" as you say) that Shakespeare's later plays have. In short, it's a bloodbath--it's shocking in the same way that pooping into another person's butt is shocking, and shocking for the sake of being shocking (it's indulgent)--and is not presented in a very refined manner. In that respect, it is certainly a curious and interesting play, but it's not terribly artistic and it's not read by critics because it's artistic, but essentially because it's so shrouded in mystery. It has, however, received much more attention from critics due to its controversial content, authorship, and its potential biographical implications, as evidenced by the Wiki articles. But, to sum up then, the reasons as to why Titus has been treated in the way it has been in the past 50 years are rather external to the play itself.

[AuntShecky]

I don't think that Titus is regarded more highly because we've somehow become more open minded - criticism in the latter half of the 20th century has been mostly dedicated to over-inflating minor issues and otherwise garbage literature because critics and grad students have run out of things to write about.

Even so, because of the inexplicably violent tastes of the American people, I would not be at all surprised if some opportunistic producers opted Titus Andronicus, updated it, and put it on Broadway: Titus! (The Musical)


would you really argue that Titus is a superior play? No, that would be quite retarded.

This thread has veered into a quite reasonable discussion debating what kind of material (and its expression) is acceptable. Among LitNetters there are few stronger advocates of free speech besides yours fooly. Nevertheless, I am making a humble but an extremely heart-felt request that we refrain from using the "r" word in contexts other than advocating for the mentally disabled. I believe I speak for many families affected by this issue, in that we would all appreciate an effort toward sensitivity.


(Thank you.)

[munkinhead]

William Blake said "You never know what is enough,
until you know what is more than enough."
That was more than enough.

[hillwalker]

William Blake said "You never know what is enough,
until you know what is more than enough."
That was more than enough.

Perfectly put.

H

[WolfLarsen]

Grotesque is good! The literary world is just too darned refined! While it's true that I occasionally come across a refined piece of literature of good quality it's my opinion that refined literature is often of very poor quality. It's like people babbling away in coffee shops oblivious to all the horrors of the world around them. The Symbolists made some very disturbing paintings -as did the Expressionists. Rodin’s sculptures were considered disgusting & revolting. And they are! And yet they are great works of art.

What is often considered good taste in its day is with time forgotten as merely banal.

The horrors of the world make for the best literature! Those that graduate from ivy league universities on the legacy program may run the literary world but they don't know anything about literature. They may understand the past of literature but they have no conception of what constitutes great contemporary literature.
The biggest enemy of great contemporary art & literature are the idiot connoisseurs of good taste, and they're the ones running the show. They run the world. And look how screwed up it is. They run the economy. Look how they screwed that up. They run the show in the literary & art worlds. And look at all the banal garbage that comes out – oh yeah, but it's in “good taste”. The main thing about "good taste" is that it's never a threat to the establishment and tradition. When you break with tradition the establishment feels threatened. And those that identify with tradition and "good taste" feel threatened as well.

The best thing for the writer or artist to do is just to ignore the connoisseurs of "good taste" and do whatever he wants to do.

[Jerrybaldy]

too darned ? really?

[Delta40]

Yes you could smear **** across the screen, call it art and expect social change but I doubt that will be the result.

[WolfLarsen]

The very fact that you have to say "****" shows that the literary world is too uptight!

[Delta40]

lol. Lit-Net is the culprit here. Not all websites have this censor. I can only write

S h i t w i t h s p a c e s b e t w e e n!

[Jerrybaldy]

anybody who uses the phrase 'too darned' is too uptight. I will sign off your thread here, you are giving Americans a bad name and that takes some doing.

[WolfLarsen]

The thing that people want to forget is that we all are primates. We may be four-eyed primates but we are still primates. When you forget that we are all primates you are out of touch. Some of the best literature & art is primal. Some of the best writers & artists have been primal. If you are primal you have good instincts, and you need good instincts to know when you are creating something unique and when you're just writing some "****" that is conventional, lacks imagination, and fails to bring creativity to literature & art.

Most intellectual people are not primal enough. They're not in contact with the inner animal. Strive to be a four-eyed animal with more knowledge than most intellectuals! Strive to have a gigantic imagination! Strive to be an animal with excellent instincts! You want to be an intellectual animal with great ferocious powers and boundless energy!

Of course I'm full of "****" like a lot of people, because there's always a million exceptions to every statement. I doubt Salvador Dali was very primal. However, he had a giant imagination and he was not afraid to assault tradition. He didn't care if somebody was shocked by his paintings. He didn't care if somebody criticize them. He once said something about being a mediocre painter with great vision.

If you don't have great vision then you'll never be a great writer. If you're chained to tradition you'll never come up with something creative and new, and it won't be worth the while to read your stuff. Don't be afraid of the criticism of others. Smash tradition into pieces if it gets in your way - smash tradition into pieces if it gets in the way of expressing yourself! And if you're a four-eyed primate like myself you won't have any problem taking a club (or pen) and smashing tradition into pieces whenever it gets in your way! Being cultured and knowing the history of art and literature is not the same as being chained to it! Some people are chained to tradition because they are close minded.


If you dress differently, if you paint differently, if you compose unique symphonies, if you write stuff that nobody's ever written before then you will be criticized. If you write the vulgar and ugly because the world has a vulgar and ugly side than all of the people who are overly civilized will have a problem with that. And when they criticize you you know you're doing something right! People can call my writing "****" I don't care. I defend their right to say it. But the fact is the literature that will be remembered in the future is the literature that is creative. Most polite literature in "good taste" will be forgotten.

Regarding the "****" thing I hope Delta understands that I am not criticizing him personally. I am talking about the literary world in general. I am not criticizing anybody in particular. I am talking about the literary world.

A Jewish poet named David Learner summed up the whole literary world so well in a poem entitled Mein Kamph. I hate the title of that poem. But I love the rest of it. Great literature and the literary world as it exists are two very different things.

One of the problems in the literary world is that we don't have freedom of speech. You can't say words like "****". You can't use words that describe certain parts of your anatomy (the best parts!), nor can you say what you do with those certain parts of your anatomy. Of course, this site might be different. But the fact is lots of people get banned all the time from literary forums just because their literature contains certain "bad words"or their literature has sex in it or violence or its crude.
I'm not talking about this site in particular. But throughout the literary world often there seems to be an allergic reaction whenever a literary work has sex or violence or crudeness. It's like so many people in the literary world don't live in the real world. Maybe they don't read the news. Maybe they don't see anything when they walk down the street. Maybe they're just completely oblivious to everything except for what is in a book.
And how many writers engage in self-censorship? They know that certain stuff won't be published in literary magazines, or might get them banned in literary forums, so the words in their head don't even see the light of day on the page. And how many writers have great material that they can't post on the Internet because of all the censorship in the literary world.

[IceM]

Grotesque is good!

The biggest enemy of great contemporary art & literature are the idiot connoisseurs of good taste, and they're the ones running the show. They run the world. And look how screwed up it is. They run the economy. Look how they screwed that up. They run the show in the literary & art worlds. And look at all the banal garbage that comes out – oh yeah, but it's in “good taste”.

No, grotesque is grostesque. Good is good. The terms are not synonymous.

I refuse to believe art is a conspiratorial scheme by the intellectuals. Objectively identifying what is great and what is not is simple. Greatness is timeless. Garbage rots. Don't assume rejection of your work implies that fine art is a farce.



Most intellectual people are not primal enough. They're not in contact with the inner animal.



No, the intellectuals recognize the potential for a transcendence beyond the primal. Primacy is inherent. Great artists and writers are interested in the brilliance of Man when he transcends his own primacy.


But throughout the literary world often there seems to be an allergic reaction whenever a literary work has sex or violence or crudeness.

Just as there is an allergic reaction to weak prose or mundane cliche. Weak writing is the cause, not your suggested reasons.

[MorpheusSandman]

I don't think that Titus is regarded more highly because we've somehow become more open minded - criticism in the latter half of the 20th century has been mostly dedicated to over-inflating minor issues and otherwise garbage literature because critics and grad students have run out of things to write about.I think it's simply that the entire world--not just academia, and certainly not just criticism and literary studies--have become so specialized that those specialist areas have expanded rapidly. A lot of this, I think, is due to the rise in literacy. A few hundred years ago there were precious few that actually had the literacy and knowledge to be critics, but these days anyone with internet and library access can become incredibly well learned on subjects in no time. Combine this with the fact that knowledge builds upon knowledge, and pretty soon you end up with a world where every subject is subdivided to death. Think of medicine where, say, a few hundred years ago there were simply general doctors and occasional surgeons, while today every area of medicine has its specialists.

Anyway, I'm not sure what this has to do with Titus' growing popularity. I do think there's some merit in the idea that literary critics/scholars look for overlooked and unknown authors and works to promote, but this can only work and go so far as others find some value in it. I actually think Titus fits extremely well in a society in love with irony, violence, exaggeration, self-awareness, and irreverence. Something like Titus isn't terribly far away from, say, the satire of South Park, but while the latter works in a purely comedic mode, the former is working in a tragic mode, to such a degree that it practically becomes a parody of itself. I mean, seriously, watch Julie Taymor's version and tell me that it doesn't fit the tone of the play. It seems to fit much better than the much more straight-forward "faithful" BBC adaptation.


consider that the Wikipedia article on Titus is longer than the Wiki article on Hamlet (and the authorship question receives its own article) - but even though it seems to be receiving so much more attention would you really argue that Titus is a superior play? No, that would be quite retarded.I don't know what this has to do with anything. Me arguing that Titus is an example of an interesting play that uses grotesqueness to make its point is hardly the equivalent of me saying that Titus is artistically equal to Hamlet. Although, I think it's inevitable that the audience for grotesque art is limited, and I rather think it's a testament to Titus' quality that even after several hundred years it still manages to gross people out. Again, it's a very modern play in that respect, fitting well alongside, as I mentioned earlier, films like Chan Wook-Park's Revenge Trilogy.

I'm not really arguing Titus is a great play. It's certainly one of Shakespeare's weakest but, hell, it's a testament to his greatness that his weakest works are still full of fascination and underlying substance that has relevance today.

P
Perhaps it was written by Shakespeare (I'm not denying that possibility, but, again, probably shouldn't be represented as unequivocally his) or it was coauthored by Shakespeare and Peele (likely), but it's still wanting for the artistic merit (and "technical talents" as you say) that Shakespeare's later plays have. In short, it's a bloodbath--it's shocking in the same way that pooping into another person's butt is shocking, and shocking for the sake of being shocking (it's indulgent)--and is not presented in a very refined manner. In that respect, it is certainly a curious and interesting play, but it's not terribly artistic and it's not read by critics because it's artistic,Again, from what I've read, Shakespeare's primary authorship is, I think, a non-issue and wouldn't be an issue if so many didn't hate the play so immensely. Now, the comments you make about Titus being popular only because it's shocking but not because it has any artistic value is, I think, putting the cart before the horse. What we deem as "artistic" is art that moves us to begin with, whether that movement is towards sadness, joy, or, yes, shock and repulsion. I think the only reason shock is valued less highly as "art" is because there are many cheap and easy ways to shock people. It's the same reason pornography isn't valued as art, because it's very easy to film people having sex and arouse viewers (although there are connoisseurs of porn out there, believe it or not). Yet, I also think it's true that there are similar triggers to moving people towards sadness and laughter. What I think is hypocritical is that people tend to overlook those cheap, easy triggers more so than those that are shocking.

I think the key with any art, whether it be tragedy, comedy, shocking, sad, joyous, sexually provocative, etc. is that whatever emotion it provokes is followed by some kind of intellectual appreciation or curiosity. Shakespeare was a master at this in that he moved audiences with his drama or comedy, yet there was always something left afterward to think about, as if the drama or comedy wasn't enough to supply the audience's desire. Hamlet works superbly as drama, sure, but once it's over there are so many unanswered questions, so many points and ideas it raises that aren't resolved with its conclusion. Shakespeare was the greatest of all thematic dramatizers. He just had an innate sense of how to take an abstract idea and put it into a dramatic framework with real characters that pulled us into both the drama and engaged us with the themes.

In that respect, I don't think it's fair to say that Titus is JUST shocking. There are so many themes that it leaves to ponder. First and foremost I think it's ridiculously exaggerated bloodbath reveals just how ludicrous the notion of revenge is anyway. There is no "getting equal", because humans are incapable of thinking objective enough to think anything someone did to them makes them equal for something they did to someone else. So what happens is this escalation of scale until what you're left with is total annihilation. You say the play lacks technical talents, but I don't think this is true. Shakespeare seems to be very consciously badly imitating revenge tragedies, yet this itself reveals its characters to be stuck inside their exaggerated subjective worlds where there is no perspective on anything external. Again, the real grotesqueness in the play is in the minds of the characters who look on everything they do or everything that happens to them as having some grand, divine significance; this is a theme that Shakespeare exploited even more successfully and profoundly in Lear, but I still think the seeds of the theme are present in Titus.

To relate back to the OP's poem, I think the issue of it being shocking is a non-issue. The real issue should be whether it leaves the reader anything to think about and consider, or whether it like pornography that once the act is done there's no more interest in the object. IE, do we finish the piece merely shocked, or does it provoke us to think about why were shocked? Perhaps it's just the former, but, then again, I think there's plenty of art we love and appreciate that only moves us emotionally. We might not call them masterpieces, but I don't think a piece being shocking is enough to immediately dismiss its quality.


Grotesque is good! The literary world is just too darned refined! ... The biggest enemy of great contemporary art & literature are the idiot connoisseurs of good taste, and they're the ones running the show... The thing that people want to forget is that we all are primates... Some of the best literature & art is primal. Some of the best writers & artists have been primal... Most intellectual people are not primal enough. A lot of your arguments reminds me of the Jung quote: "Too much of the animal distorts the civilized man, too much civilization makes sick animals." I think there's a danger when we lean too far either way. I would support the notion that the "good taste" connoisseurs frequently need to get more primal, yet at the same time I think most of the masses need to get a bit more refined. I think the ideal is the man that can live in and enjoy the best of both worlds. Now, occasionally I think it's fine to throw in an extreme to try and upset (or, perhaps, restore) the status quo balance, but I think this only works if you consider both sides as needing such an occasional shake.

[hillwalker]

I don't think a piece being shocking is enough to immediately dismiss its quality.

I agree. A great deal of visual and written art can shock the senses while remaining art.
Unfortunately the poem (?) in question was no more artistic than someone rearranging roadkill on a canvas and calling it "ART".

Personally I was unable to see anything in the piece that justified positive feedback - except that the spelling was ok. But each to their own.....

H

[MorpheusSandman]

I agree. A great deal of visual and written art can shock the senses while remaining art.
Unfortunately the poem (?) in question was no more artistic than someone rearranging roadkill on a canvas and calling it "ART".I think the question though is "why"? What makes this piece different than other shocking works that we still consider art? Is it merely about the lack of technical adeptness, or is there more to it?

[Delta40]

Shouldn't the rules of technical adeptness (what are they btw?) still apply even if the aim is to shock? One seldom recommends splashing the heart over a page about anything.

[Jerrybaldy]

Anybody fancy a beer?

[Delta40]

Anybody fancy a beer?

only if its bitter! :smile5:

[MorpheusSandman]

Shouldn't the rules of technical adeptness (what are they btw?) still apply even if the aim is to shock?Well, that's the question. Most of these "rules" (more like guidelines really; suggestions for how to better one's craft) are there precisely to refine rough edges, so does such refinement really fit into art that's meant to be ugly? Can art present shocking ugliness through means which are typically meant to beautify? It's actually an old debate that spreads throughout the art-forms. Take cinema, where the neo-realists rejected most of the techniques of what came before them in favor of creating a very rough, realistic feel. This, in itself, almost became a standard for "technical adeptness" as other techniques were introduced--like shaky cameras--to try and create that rough, realistic edge. Most such standards are born out of people rejecting the standards of what came before them and forging a new and valid way of creativity. There is something to be said for a lot of the rejection of such work as merely being a reaction from those whom are comfortable in a certain aesthetic systems. The originals almost always caused a stir because they broke the rules in one way or another (Donne for not keeping the meter "deserved hanging" according to Johnson, while Shakespeare deserved it for relying on puns, not observing the unities, and delving into the supernatural). I guess the question is really just whether such a new expression moves enough people to care and create their own standards.

[Delta40]

Like a person with uncontrollable rage vs a clean cut, well ordered serial killer?

[MorpheusSandman]

^ That's a good analogy.

[hillwalker]

The pity of this piece for me was that the writing was adept and the message it was trying to convey most worthy. But it smacked of so much self-indulgence - the writer getting his kicks by trying to shock, rather like a child laughing at a rude picture while pretending to be so worldly-wise. It just didn't achieve what it set out to achieve.

..... and I'll have a Fosters JB if you're buying.

H

[munkinhead]

My problem is not that it is shocking, rather that it is not artful.
The theme is worthy of expression but this is more like an autopsy
report than a poem. Only my opinion of course.

[WolfLarsen]

I totally defend the right of people to say that this poem is garbage, or to say that my poetry in general is garbage.

But at the same time maybe they're wrong. Virtually everybody thought that Van Gogh's painting was garbage, and they insulted Picasso's paintings by saying it was merely a bunch of cubes, as they insulted the works of Degas, Monet, Manet, etc by saying it was just a bunch of impressions rather than painting.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion. But the world is vulgar. My life has been vulgar. I am an intellectual brute. Therefore, I can relate to somebody's comments about being well-rounded. The literary world is too civilized. It's too backward. It's too conservative.

I went through the entire poetry collection of the New York City library and the Brooklyn Library with a hunger you can't imagine. I can't tell you how often I came across books which stated something to the effect of: so-and so was famous in his day, but nobody reads them anymore, but his poems are actually worth reading blah blah blah. And no, they weren't worth reading. What's in good taste is usually boring and banal.

The literary world has given me so little inspiration in comparison to painters, musicians, sculptors - very few writers and poets have been truly inspirational to me. Writers are too conservative, too allergic to risk.

This might have something to do with the economics of the situation. Writers were connected to academia to bring in a paycheck. Academia is conservative. Or if they weren't connected to academia writers looked or aspired to have their work taken up by the big publishing corporations. After all, writers need to eat too.

But maybe the big publishing corporations are about to sink. What do we need them for? Technology has made them obsolete. We are in the midst of great technological changes that make a revolution in literature feasible, if only the writers could find the courage to take chances and write something new and creative.

I love to click on something on an Internet site and find something completely different than anything I've read before. But unfortunately, most of the time all I find is the used-up and conventional. Maybe extremely well written used-up and conventional, but what's the point if there's no creativity? Once you master the conventional it's time to get creative and write like no other human being on earth, the same way that Picasso mastered the conventional as a child and then moved on to true creativity - to expressing himself on canvas.

[Delta40]

I really like your passion but your piece isn't about people being wrong or right. Despite our views on anything, one size poetry doesn't fit all. Taste counts for everything. your taste is no more legitimate than the next persons. Go and write poetry like nobody else on earth has. We all should aspire to be our best. It will not however logically follow that all others will be impressed by it.

[tailor STATELY]

Welcome to Litnet.

I've read and re-read this "poem" and I just don't get it.

After reading all the comments a few times - I still don't get it.

So, I will humble myself before the poet's inestimable talent, acknowledging the limits of my own understanding, and look forward to more "poems".

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[MorpheusSandman]

What's in good taste is usually boring and banal.I don't think it's really fair to make such sweeping statements about literature or art in general. To use your music and painting examples, Mozart and Raphael are in good taste, but I think it's impossible to say they're banal.


The literary world has given me so little inspiration in comparison to painters, musicians, sculptors - very few writers and poets have been truly inspirational to me. Writers are too conservative, too allergic to risk.Hmmm, I find this quite interesting. If you don't have (m)any literary influences, then why are you trying to be a writer? Are you rather like Stan Brakhage who said that the reason he started making films is because he didn't see anybody making films that he wanted to see? If so, that's an interesting outlook to have, but the usual method is that people go into the areas that inspire them. Wouldn't you rather learn to paint, sculpt, or compose/play music (not that you can't do them and write too, I guess)?

That said, I think you're too short-sighted to say that writers are too conservative and allergic to risk. Perhaps you're filtering all of them through modern eyes where much of what writers in the past did doesn't seem so risky. But Joyce not risky? Mark Twain not risky? Shakespeare not risky? Donne not risky? I've been studying Donne lately, and he actually expressed a lot of fear about his satires, which, at one point during his life, were outlawed in England, and his elegies were sexually charged and controversial the way no other poetry at the time was. Of course, we read it now and maybe it's not such a big deal. Even in his later work his eschewing of poetry tradition, especially form and meter, was highly daring and original, and he certainly got plenty of criticism for doing it. Really, that's just one example of one writer, but there are plenty of others. What about Whitman and his pioneering of free-verse and poems about homosexuality? What about Milton trying to write an English epic to compete with the classics?

This might have something to do with the economics of the situation. Writers were connected to academia to bring in a paycheck. Academia is conservative. Or if they weren't connected to academia writers looked or aspired to have their work taken up by the big publishing corporations. After all, writers need to eat too.


I love to click on something on an Internet site and find something completely different than anything I've read before. But unfortunately, most of the time all I find is the used-up and conventional. Maybe extremely well written used-up and conventional, but what's the point if there's no creativity? Once you master the conventional it's time to get creative and write like no other human being on earth...Well, "there's nothing new under the sun", as the saying goes. Most "new" things are just variations on ideas that have been around for ages but people have just forgotten about. Every now and then you come across something that has no precedent, but that's incredibly rare, and it's not always a positive anyway. I mean, your work here may be different, but it's not completely original or without precedent. Literary depiction of brutality go back hundreds of years, and they were quite popular during the Renaissance, actually.

[WolfLarsen]

Hello Delta! Yes we are certainly all different and we all have our different opinions and we all have our different tastes and we all have our rights to have our different opinions and different tastes and thank you for acknowledging that. Now hopefully if everybody would just write completely different than each other then reading would be a lot more exciting!

Hello Taylor stately! This is a sadistic poem for a sadistic world. It isn't just about the CIA. In fact, when I wrote the first draft of the poem I wasn't thinking of the CIA. The title came later. I feel that the title fits the poem quite well. Others might disagree.
Sandman mentions many great writers who were innovative and courageous. My argument is today we need writers who are innovative and courageous. Sandman mentions writers of the past, all of whom we are familiar with from our literature 101 classes. I like many of the writers he mentioned. I used to play hooky from school to read Mark Twain. I remember reading Shakespeare at midnight in the Sheppard building of City College overlooking the lights of Harlem. I loved it!

I used to read ferociously! I would go to the library and walk out with my hands full of books and come back a week later for more. However, unless there's something continuously new and different and exciting than it gets old. We need more innovation in contemporary writing! We writers are boring people to death! I see readers on the bus - they get bored of the books in their hands and they start looking out at the scenery that they've seen 1000 times before. When the scenery outside that the reader has seen 1000 times before is more interesting than the book in his hand than the writers aren't doing their job.

Cheers!

[billl]

How is this poem daring? What is the risk, here?

How is it innovative? Have you ever heard of Mark Leyner? If anybody thinks this poem is exciting and fresh, they will probably love this book from 1993 (click on the "Look Inside" image on the left, and read the first pages):

http://www.amazon.com/Tu-Babe-Mark-Leyner/dp/0679745068/ref=pd_sim_b_2

[jajdude]

Haha,

When billl comments, I'd pay attention.

I failed to see the merits of the writing as well, not that I'm much of a writer or critic, but I will say it was unlike anything I've read, so that was cool, except maybe for that Chuck Pahlukniak dude or whatever his name is, his short story "Guts" was pretty rough.

[WolfLarsen]

uy. Frankly, I hope that there are writers more innovative and daring than I am. And I'm always excited to read innovative and daring.

And thank you jajdude. I'll look up that Chuck guy as well.

If you notice I don't defend the quality of the poem or my writing in general. Time will decide that. But I do defend its crudity, it's barbarity - I feel like an innovative barbarian in the world of literature. We need educated and crude, we need barbarous and intellectual, we need brutish and smart. I might not be smart, but I am unique. Nobody writes like me. I strongly feel that nobody should right like anybody. No two writers should be even remotely alike.

It occurs to me that probably many people on this website are smarter than me. But in high school I was always overshadowed by someone who was immensely more smarter than myself, and had far more potential than I did. Amongst other things he tied two grandmasters or whatever they're called at chess. His piano teacher said he had it in him to become a great composer. Do you know what this whiz kid is doing with his life today? He's preaching the word of god. He's a born-again christian preacher. What a waste!
It's not enough to be intelligent. You have to do something with it. You have to be creative. And if there's others out there far more creative than myself than I'm relieved. Maybe there's hope for contemporary literature after all!

[jajdude]

I can't spell his name, who can, but he wrote 'Fight Club' which means something.

Chuck Palahniuk

ah here we go: http://edition.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/palahniuk.html

And dude, you're obviously quite bright. I just reckon if ya wanna write stuff, no need to throw it down so hard. We get it, most of us. I've seen videos I'll never forget.

[MorpheusSandman]

Sandman mentions many great writers who were innovative and courageous. My argument is today we need writers who are innovative and courageous.Aha. It seemed to me like you were referring to all writers past and present. But art from today is no different than it was in the past. There are innovators out there, there always are. What about James Merrill and John Ashbery for modern, innovative poets; surely you don't think The Changing Light at Sandover is conventional and conservative.


We writers are boring people to death! I see readers on the bus - they get bored of the books in their hands and they start looking out at the scenery that they've seen 1000 times before. When the scenery outside that the reader has seen 1000 times before is more interesting than the book in his hand than the writers aren't doing their job.It could also be that people just aren't that interested in literature and/or are bad readers. I rarely get bored reading, especially since I've learned speed reading and various methods for retaining what I read. The only time I ever look up from a book is if something major distracts me (like a phone ringing or someone calling my name.


I feel like an innovative barbarian in the world of literature. We need educated and crude, we need barbarous and intellectual, we need brutish and smart. I might not be smart, but I am unique. Nobody writes like me. I strongly feel that nobody should right like anybody. No two writers should be even remotely alike.Errr, I think you're giving yourself too much credit here. I'll defend the legitimacy of writing crude and barbarous literature, but you aren't the first to do it. Again, revenge tragedies of the Rennaissance could get pretty bloody. And something like Footnote to the Amnesty Report on Torture (http://www.ronnowpoetry.com/contents/atwood/Footnote.html) is arguably more disturbing than your piece, because there's a greater sense of the darkness of humanity behind the scenes. The horror isn't found in the acts themselves, but in the means by which they're allowed to exist and continue.

[Delta40]

For such a criticized piece Wolf, you do win the prize for most posts on a poem!

[Scheherazade]

For such a criticized piece Wolf, you do win the prize for most posts on a poem!So true, Delta! :)



I would like to thank everyone for taking in part in this discussion and, apart from couple of slips, for not resorting to personal attacks while discussing the poem.

[Cunninglinguist]

I think it's simply that the entire world--not just academia, and certainly not just criticism and literary studies--have become so specialized that those specialist areas have expanded rapidly. A lot of this, I think, is due to the rise in literacy. A few hundred years ago there were precious few that actually had the literacy and knowledge to be critics, but these days anyone with internet and library access can become incredibly well learned on subjects in no time. Combine this with the fact that knowledge builds upon knowledge, and pretty soon you end up with a world where every subject is subdivided to death. Think of medicine where, say, a few hundred years ago there were simply general doctors and occasional surgeons, while today every area of medicine has its specialists.

Anyway, I'm not sure what this has to do with Titus' growing popularity. I do think there's some merit in the idea that literary critics/scholars look for overlooked and unknown authors and works to promote,

Well, In my experience it has to primarily do with cultural values – everyone needs a college degree, and everyone needs a graduate degree, or so we’re told, in order to succeed. And so many feel that they must get a Ph.D., but we’ve run out of stuff to write about, so trends emerge. I was listening to a lecture yesterday where a literary professor (one of these types who keep their tie on tight so that their head won’t deflate) made the thesis that Hume was as good of a writer as Burns; though, mind you, she never actually explicitly argued this nor did she ever mention Burns in her lecture again. I suspect she was making such an extraordinary and inflated claim to hook the audience…but in the end she exemplifies the problem quite well. People must be windy in order to get attention in academia these days, and people get carried away in the breeze, all to get their Ph.D., so to speak.


I don't know what this has to do with anything. Me arguing that Titus is an example of an interesting play that uses grotesqueness to make its point is hardly the equivalent of me saying that Titus is artistically equal to Hamlet.

It is pertinent because you have at least implied that we can measure art by the reactions it provokes, and you have said that Wolf's poem has quality because it has been provocative. I must beg to differ, and apparently so do you.


I think the key with any art, whether it be tragedy, comedy, shocking, sad, joyous, sexually provocative, etc. is that whatever emotion it provokes is followed by some kind of intellectual appreciation or curiosity.

This seems to belie what you’ve previously said, that Titus does not equal Hamlet. Yet, if this is true, then you cannot reliably measure the merits of a piece of art by the attention it receives and the reactions it provokes, which is contrary to what you have previously suggested.

At any rate, I think to continue this would be getting off topic...I'm not sure how appropriate your original analogy between Titus and Wolf's poem was. In short, though I don't regard Titus highly next to other Shakespeare plays, I think it is much better than Wolf's poem. It was at least shocking whereas, to be less than nice, Wolf's poem struck me as amateurish, and this amateurishness seems to be what most people are reacting to. But the number of replies to this poem indicates something - I thought it would've been forgotten about by now.

[Skia]

I thought I wrote "dark" poetry, this takes the biscuit.
I'm not sorry to say I didn't enjoy it. In MY opinion, too graphic,It seemed more like ramblings of a drunk not poetic and furthermore I had to stop reading it. Made me throw up a little.

[Jerrybaldy]

Ok a pint of Fosters for Hill. Anybody else?

[hillwalker]

Some Alka Seltzer for Skia.

[Jerrybaldy]

Blimey I am the bar not Boots the chemist. Snacks??

[Skia]

Lmao, brilliant Hill :D Just not to my taste but nevertheless, others like :)

[Delta40]

Nuts thanks and I think we should hold a toast for Wolf, who hopefully will make an appearance and give a speech.....

[Cunninglinguist]

What's the proof of Purell? ... like 120? I'll have a cup o' that!

[MorpheusSandman]

People must be windy in order to get attention in academia these days, and people get carried away in the breeze, all to get their Ph.D., so to speak.I have little love loss for academia myself, really. Those I admire most are those who simply be in it to learn, but as Twain said "I never let schooling interfere with my education", or, as Zappa said, "If you want to get laid, go to college; if you want to get an education, go the library". I've chosen the library over college myself, although there are times when I think the resources in academia would be helpful.


It is pertinent because you have at least implied that we can measure art by the reactions it provokes, and you have said that Wolf's poem has quality because it has been provocative. I must beg to differ, and apparently so do you.

This seems to belie what you’ve previously said, that Titus does not equal Hamlet. Yet, if this is true, then you cannot reliably measure the merits of a piece of art by the attention it receives and the reactions it provokes, which is contrary to what you have previously suggested.Let me try to cogently make my point: I think there's two points that comprises the vast majority of great art:

1. It moves/provokes people (usually emotionally, aesthetically, or in other more irrational, experiential way)
2. It continues to interest them intellectually after that initial experience.

I can't really name a single work of art we consider "great" that doesn't have these two qualities. First, art has to connect with people and move them to feel/think something to make them care at all. Second, it has to withstand the more cool-headed "test of time". I think most people when considering great art mostly just focus on 2 while forgetting that 1 preceded 2. The problem with this is that I think achieving 1 is equally important, and just as difficult, as achieving 2. Making people care--whether it's negatively or positively--isn't an easy thing to do. And once that's done, I think that's half the battle.

So when I speak of the "value" of wolf's poem, I simply mean that it's achieved 1, but likely that it won't achieve 2. But in the wake of all the poetry on here that achieves neither, I think there has to be some value in it. As I said in a recent review of Aronofsky's Black Swan, I'll take an interest failure that provokes people over a banal success that doesn't, because the latter will ultimately be forgotten, while the former has a better shot at being remembered.


It was at least shocking whereas, to be less than nice, Wolf's poem struck me as amateurish, and this amateurishness seems to be what most people are reacting to. Most poems posted here are amateurish, and I include mine in that group as much as anyone's, and none of them receive this level of reaction.

[WolfLarsen]

I'm glad my poem gave someone the urge to throw up! How many people have that distinction of writing poetry that makes people want to throw up! Truly I'm distinguished!

But really, making people want to throw up is an accomplishment in the world of poetry. We Poets need to do more of that!

Hello Sandman! I never said I was the first one to write in a crude and shocking manner. I merely said no one writes like me. I hope one day everybody will write like themselves, instead of trying to copy the greats of the past, or trying to conform to some kind of sterile conventional "perfection".

Although sometimes I find the conventional style of writing useful when I want to create an extreme realism. That is when I want to write something really blunt! When I want to really tell it as it is, without polite hypocrisy, without shielding the reader from the brutality of the main character's world.

I like to write with brutality! What do you expect from me? I grew up on the South Side of Chicago. I went to college and lived in Harlem back in the days when the gunshots flew freely. I worked nearly 2 years on commercial fishing boats in Alaska's Bering Sea, then I spent 10 years as an Alaskan longshoreman on a seasonal basis, and I've spent years on and off living in Third World countries were misery is everywhere!

You write what you know. Long live brutality in writing!

[Jerrybaldy]

Nuts for Delta. Anybody for Pork scratchings?

[Skia]

But really, making people want to throw up is an accomplishment in the world of poetry. .... ???
I Just felt a little rise up in my throat. FYI Not good

[Cunninglinguist]

So when I speak of the "value" of wolf's poem, I simply mean that it's achieved 1,

Personally, I'm not so sure about that. Most of our discussion, at least, has not been about the poem at all, and could have arisen entirely independent of it. For the rest of the comments, they're pretty much redundant or about alcohol.


Most poems posted here are amateurish, and I include mine in that group as much as anyone's, and none of them receive this level of reaction.

Paris Hilton gets a lot of reaction, yet there's nothing good about who she is or what she does, and that's precisely why she is remarkable. For me, this piece is remarkable because it is so unartful, not the other way around. It does not make me cringe, nor gross me out, nor does it impress me after I have walked away. It has not affected me, it is not something I can hate or like because I cannot understand what, if anything, it is trying to say. Is it sarcastic, disingenuous or sincere? What is the point? What am I supposed to be seeing? And, since I cannot even answer that, I cannot begin to consider if it says what it says effectively and soundly. It is, in any case whatsoever, pretty much, to be less than nice again, a failure of expression to at least myself (and another poster said something to the same effect); and if art is about expression, effective expression and the methods thereof, this piece is a patent failure. If anything, what we've been reacting to is not the art but the artist who has made himself, as it were, Paris Hilton.

The things in life that end up receiving the most attention tend to be the stupid and the ridiculous over the acceptable and ordinary, and even the extraordinary. The utterly groundbreaking will get their attention, from the few who can actually appreciate it, all while the rest of the population continues to watch and somehow dignify Jersey Shore.

At any rate, it seems like this thread now receives its attention simply because it's received so much attention.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Good quality as in successfully generating a response - yes. But surely the response the writer was after is not the one he's got.
How can you know this? I suspect when one writes something like this, it's only goal is to make people angry and grossed out (this is just a suspicion, though, I don't really know his motives--if it was really a criticism of the CIA, I don't think it works).

Personally, I liked it. I found it quite humorous. I doubt that was the intended reaction, though (again, the whole knowing thing comes in to play). You ever read Cannibal Corpse lyrics, Wolf? They did this 20+ years ago. It's easy to do. I'll do some gore-poetry right off the top of my head:

I cut your scrotum slowly, watching the blood trickle forth, relishing the terror in your eyes and the cries of your watching daughter. I grab her by her pretty blonde hair and hold her close to the blood so she can better see, so you can better hear her wails of anguish and terror. I knick her with my knife just a little, because I don't want you to have all the fun, now do I?

Etcetera, etcetera. . . . And I dare say that may be even more disturbing. And then I could name it something absurd, like "Bush's Invasion of Iraq" just to piss more people off.

[firefangled]

Solely the decanting of your own personal disgust with the CIA by pouring out what you imagine to be a representative scenario is not poetry. What is said in this badly written paragraph about language?

The only thing I see does not belong to the CIA alone. What does it say about the culture that has such descriptors and syntax in its language?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The only thing I see does not belong to the CIA alone. What does it say about the culture that has such descriptors and syntax in its language?
Are you suggesting you can't say the same thing in another language?

[Babyguile]

Next time write a poem.