Wednesday, April 12, 2006

more on this...

I’ve been following the discussion here, here, here, and here.

I think someone may have hit it on the head in regard to the idea of “diaristic” vs. “discursive” --as to which is privileged in the literary world--which most closely resembles that sense of “print legitimacy“. I don’t think the author of the PW article meant intentionally to exclude women, but that exclusion is just another symptom of what I see cropping up again and again--endless discussions of why women aren’t engaging in the critical discussions, why women aren’t doing this or that. Frankly I’m tired of it. Some women poets do, some don’t. There are just as many more “diaristic” blogs out there written by men as there are women. I think with this notion of “legitimacy’ comes some segregation (as it always does). People start dividing into camps and doing the us vs. them thing. We’re better and more serious because of x, you’re not because of y. All of which I think hurts something as open and diverse as the blogworld, where what currently constitutes a “poetry blog” can vary from reviews, autobiographical material, actual poetry, criticism, drafts, news, political discussion, pictures, cartoons, etc. And why can’ it be all these things? And in the best blogs, sometimes it’s meshed all together.

So what if women blogs are more “holistic” as Josh Corey mentions. I disagree with that as a wide spread description, but in alot of cases, including my own, it‘s true., This is a problem throughout literary history--what’s termed “men’s writing” and what’s “womens writing.” The Victorians, for example where diaries and letters aren’t considered as important as the “serious” work of men. I‘d like to think, more evolved these days, we‘re moving away from that..

No comments: