O AWP

poetry-is-the-art-of-seduction.jpg

“Leave my Grandma out of this!”O AWP, I enjoyed you so for such a short time. Here is a replay (in audio) of the panel I was on with such wonders as Lara Glenum, Danielle Pafunda, Bruce Covey, Thom Didato, and Zach Schomburg.

Met other cool poets that you can catch a glimpse of here. Wish I had met more but am on the run from Atlanta to drive north again — sorry for my absence as of late, dear regular readers (& thanks for the shout-out, Ashok! Soon my ego will know no limits …).

~~~~

In other news, I discovered today that Gary Sullivan has written an ode of sorts for me, perhaps because I asked some questions about Flarf?

If I were to hazard a quick characterization of Gary’s poem, I might begin, It’s funny how some Flarfists are incredibly complex individuals who don’t prickle when Flarf is examined, especially by such an elementary person as myself (I might even use K.S. Mohammad as an example of the non-reactive Flarfist), and then note how other Flarfists instantly fly to the weapons closet for gender-specific tools that will set the battle-of-evasion in motion … (pre-emptive defenders of the faith?).

The poem itself seems to equate the persona (c’est moi?) with a terribly conservative woman so focussed on the changes in her labia, which range from rancid to bleakly blooming (side thought: no room for men? homophobic? pussipo?), that she resembles the idiot savant who sits around in love with his own farts, making insipid proclamations about some inane spiritual condition –but really really meaning it in the realm of his own vacuum (maybe he should have some kids to pass the ’shriveling’ wisdom on to …?).

But if I started really working on that reaction, someone might accuse me of not having a sense of humor (& I did start it with “It’s funny how …” and then proceeded to be not funny), so instead, I’ll just say, “How very smegma of you, Gary!”

34 Responses to “O AWP”

  1. Jim K. Says:
    March 3rd, 2007 at 6:39 pm eArrows seem a bit misdirected, lol.
    Sounds like a real plot: are you sure it’s still flarf?
  2. Jim K. Says:
    March 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm eRead it…..I get it.
    A normal touching story about hands, and a funny word-swap
    for hands. That’s it… We shouldn’t ask if
    Jennifer is flarf….we should ask if Gary is Jennifer…yet..heh.
  3. Didi Says:
    March 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm eI dig those glasses. You look groovy.
  4. Robert Says:
    March 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 pm eCongratulations on working the word smegma into a piece of causal literary criticism. I have aspired to as much for centuries. Glad AWP was great. I guess some time I’ll have to go.
  5. Robert Says:
    March 3rd, 2007 at 8:05 pm ep.s. is there any correlation between your soon-to-be-boundless-ego and the size of your sunglasses? ‘Cuz those are some rockstar Jackie-O shades. )
  6. shanna Says:
    March 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm eNaw, that poem predates your post, Amy. I think he just wanted you to see it. Gary’s great–I definitely wouldn’t read it as an attack. Maybe a lil tease.I think most people on the flarflist are fans of Jen’s poems. (I know Kasey, Jordan, Anne and I are, at least.) There’s definitely some overlap in terms of “inappropriate” material and generally defiant (toward the taboos of traditional poetry) stance between Knoxism and Flarf, tho Jen’s strategies are not as (publicly, at least) articulated (as is her preference and purposefully coy way) as the flarf group’s are.

    Then again, I am soooooooo biased in favor of both. ;)

  7. Jim K. Says:
    March 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 pm eNicely said shanna. Both is better.
  8. Gary Sullivan Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 12:20 am eHi Amy,Yes, Shanna’s right, I just wanted you to see that poem–which I wrote three or four months ago–because I saw what you wrote about Jennifer and I think it’s a kind of Jennifer-y sort of poem. (I’m thinking of her parody of spoken word cliches–and mine’s a parody of the most common creative writing workshop cliche: the grandmother’s hands poem.

    I think Jennifer’s great. Nada and I had her read with Katie Degentesh last year at Segue.

    Gary

  9. Amy King Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 12:59 am eBrian Howe is sitting next to me here in Carrboro – he thinks the last stanza of your poem is funny, Gary. I’m still concerned with discussion of labia … I’m a prude, of sorts. I didn’t pick up on the workshop exercise bc it’s not common to me; I’ve never assigned it or been instructed to do it. But now I see …Off to eat Mexican after driving six hours – no time to think. Thanks for info, all peeps~
  10. Tim Caldwell Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 1:46 am eEchoing others, I have to comment on the pic. Very cool.
  11. Gary Sullivan Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 3:37 am eSorry the labia freak you out, Amy. I’ll keep them in my pants in the future.No one teaches “grandma’s hands” … it’s a meme or trope or whatever. People just sort of fall into writing about it, especially when they want to say something profound about time and experience.

    Doing a quick Google search on “Grandmother’s hands” and “Grandma’s hands” you’ll see a number of things, including the piece I did the word substitution on.

    Hope AWP was labia-hidden-ness-tastic!

    Gary

  12. Amy King Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 6:43 am eLabia don’t freak me out, Gary. One might know that inherently about me, even strangers who know nothing about me but blog-me. I was being disingenuous sorry.
    Labia in your pants freak me out.I can’t google grandma’s hands now. Brian already explained the non-existence of such an exercise. I was going with it though.

    Thank you — AWP was so many things, including none of the above.

    But really though, about my earlier thought, must one declare one’s self a flarfist to actually be one? What authenticates? Isn’t that tantamount to founding and joining a cult? Sorry for my naivete. I’m glad you like Jen’s work; is she an inadvertant flarfist?

  13. shanna Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 8:49 am ehee hee–”labia don’t freak me out”–where’s my tee shirt??!there’s also a song re: grandma’s hands, tho different from the piece gary used. the version i kno is done by bill withers (who rocks). he somehow gets away with it, i think by virtue of that funky beat and his smooth chops. (i also like the song because it’s somewhat silly/OTT, admittedly, and also, i have terrible taste.) but the christian yarn gary flarfed is the height of smarm and is “offensive” as a piece of writing (at least) in that it employs cliche, drippy sincerity, exaggerated emotion, and aims to be inspirationally manipulative. it is very UGH in the original. it fetishizes/makes a symbol of grandma’s physical hands–not an unfamiliar move to those brought up in the bible, where the blood, hands, jesus’s pierced side, the brow pressed by the crown of thorns, etc. are similarly fetishized. by flarfing that piece and replacing “hands” with “labia” gary’s poem makes a statement against these kinds of literary moves. if he’d written out his “points” about that kind of writing in prose, most of “us” would likely agree readily. i think it’s helpful to read (some, most?) flarf as argument. beyond the “that shouldn’t be doing that” move comes a “now *what* is that doing there?” step. that’s when i get somewhere.

    i’m just reading along & yakking re: my own reactions. haven’t asked gary about any of this. but i knew the original hands bit–had seen it on decorative plaques and in little sunday-school pamphlets and shit, so had the benefit of that context right away.

    also, i can’t sleep. again.

  14. shanna Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 9:02 am eand i HEART that poem of jen’s gary is referring to. she closes with it sometimes. it’s “freestyle vagina / free vagina! style” aka “the pussy poem,” and is hilariously spoofy re: a certain type of slam poem, even down to the birds, fire, and randomly sprinkled spanish. (she used to do that (and win that), you know.) it’s in *a gringo like me*–p. 78. the overly helpful editor in me directs all parties to amazon reader, where you peeps can peep it here.
  15. Amy King Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pm eGood morning, Shanna,Thanks for your freestyling explication -o’ – sorts. I too know those references – Whithers, the plaques, the southern religious fervor of “going home” (grew up on the bible belt) — but what I’m asking about beyond Gary’s labia-ridden poem has to do with the actual founding of a movement. Were you a flarfist before you got involved with the private listserv? Did you employ many of the techniques before you became active in the discussions of just what makes a flarfist?

    Christianity was a cult, but I’m betting people who weren’t part of that cult abided by loads of those dictums before actually declaring Christ their saviour. So without that declaration, even if they were the most accidental of stringent followers, were they not Christians because they didn’t say, “I follow Christ”?

    There are good Christians and bad Christians, just as their are good Flarfists and bad Flarfists — just as their are people who stick to the biblical rules w/out ever saying those words — and just as their are poets who write better Flarf than some of those who’ve declared themselves Flarfists — so does this movement-in-the-making-that-declares-itself-a-movement-with-appointed-practitioners make room for the unannointed? And if not, isn’t that more cult-ish than the historical founding of a movement?

    TIM- thanks for the compliment! You’re hot too, my favorite Shitebot!

  16. Amy King Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pm eThere’s an exclusivity that comes with being a self-declared follower/practitioner/parishoner of any cult — even if one is a founding member — that denies the fluidity of an *art movement*.The cult itself has to become insular in an effort to establish and enforce the rules — the representatives (pastors/bishops/priests whatever title) must abide by the agreed-upon/established laws, be controlled by the elders, and profess/promote those parameters — & in turn, the group creates ye olde “you’re not one of us if you don’t join us …” mentality. (”Gimme that old time religion…”)

    Jen Knox has been invited to read by the flarfists due to her obvious affinities/practices — but treated as something of a wayward lamb that needs to join the fold: she’s using flarf techniques, AND YET none of the flarfists has publicly discussed her work in those terms because she has not joined the group?

    Her work is not discussed in relation to Flarf & its practices from what I can tell. Is there no room for ‘outsiders’ who employ the techniques? (Why do I, a non-flarfist, already recognize the framework and understand her to be an ‘outsider’?) And ergo, is there no room for new techniques employed by non-believers to enter in? **What kind of “art” movement is that?**

    I’m sorry to say, but Flarf, from this outsider’s perspective, has the earmarks of a religious movement in spite of how redeeming some of the practices are.

    O ye, Defenders of the Faith: What’s the point of mocking religious fervor a la granny’s labia when one becomes a zealot one’s self?

  17. Gary Sullivan Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 3:57 pm eAmy,You’re kidding … right?
  18. shanna Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 5:00 pm ethis cult bidness don’t jibe for me, amy. i haven’t published any “flarf” per se–i guess i’ve read a few at readings–and tho i am no the list, i have only been on it a few months. so i’m a flarfist, so far anyway, only insofar as i participate there (and i do indeed post flarflike schtuff, often in rapidfire response to others’ flarfs, but i don’t think i’m very good at it–part of the interest there for me, really is why? what is it about the habits/penchants i have as a writer that makes the flarf approach(es) a stumbler for me, despite my wanting to try them?). i’m more like an flarfthusiast. plus i like the actual peeps, a bias i guess. anyway, the list is much much less like a cult than a bout of drinking or otherwise cutting up. it’s a great boredom reliever. there’s not been a lot (or maybe not any) talk of who is and isn’t a flarfist, or any kind of official stamp, etc. (i think kasey made fake membership cards at some point long ago) tho poets “out there” are sometimes noticed for affinities, etc., incl jen knox, in an enthusiastic way. lots of people who aren’t on the flarflist are writing flarf, or their version of it–another thing about flarf that i find fun, that there are so many versions, or that the versions keep changing–and there’s no territorality about that, that i’ve experienced. i think gary (who gets pinged as the “leader” all the time, because he made up the name, but doesn’t like give sermons or anything, tho that might be funny too) has even said something like “bully for them.” there is no “leader” or even, really, to me, anything that feels like a “movement.” aw jeez, it’s just an email list with a dozen or two people on it. it’s certainly no more of a menace, as a group, than, uh, say, pussipo! ;)it seems like what you are saying is that 1) jen knox is a flarfist 2) the flarfists are excluding her by not inviting her to the list and/or labeling her so.

    leaving aside for the moment that jen 1) doesn’t give a shit about any of this hooey and 2) ain’t a joiner in general 3) in mexico right now and 4) blissfully unaddicted to the internet (one could argue that internet addiction is a requirement of flarf)–that would be a weird thing to do, wouldn’t it? going around co-opting people like that? that might indeed seem culty/evangelical. so far i think flarf is happy to let folks self-apply the label. just a few weeks ago kasey posted a funny fake essay about all the people who were founders and leading figures of flarf, popping in folks who have nothing to do with it. a couple of those people were made kinda antsy by that, “I AM NOT FLARF” indignant, etc., and some took it in the funny spirit in which it was meant.

    i can see, in light of the immense (& gee, mostly negative, really) buzz flarf has generated why the charges of exclusivity (and worse) come up. but pussipo’s already been through that too, right, like the first week? every group goes through that. it often has little to do with what’s actually going on, don’t you think, in that case?

  19. Gary Sullivan Says:
    March 4th, 2007 at 6:03 pm eThanks, Shanna. That all pretty much sums up what I might have said.In addition, Rachel Loden a while back put together a list briefly for discussion on poetry and comedy, initially to respond to a remark that Ron Silliman had made on his blog. The discussion is either on Jacket right now, or is going to be soon–but as part of that discussion, me, Kasey and Katie, who were on Rachel’s list, talked quite a bit about Jen’s work.

    So, I do feel like, what with inviting her to read, and talking about her work during Rachel’s meant-to-be-public discussion, that I’ve been supportive of what she’s doing in a public way. I seriously doubt she would want to be on the list itself, which is made up–as Shanna puts it better than I could–of Internet junkies, who all know each other for the most part, and more or less share a particular sensibility. I’ve never called “flarf” a movement; in fact, when I’ve said anything at all about it, it’s basically to talk about why it’s probably not one. (See the interview Tom Beckett did with me on Exchange Values.)

    If others want to write about her work in relationship to flarf, that’s great, and that seems to be what you’ve started to do. But I don’t see the point of arguing that I should be writing about things that you personally believe. That’s what you’re passionate about, and what you should follow. I probably wouldn’t do it myself, but only because I don’t think that a generally satirical edge or facility with parody is pedominantly what’s going on on the list, although it’s an aspect in some of the work. (The use of the Internet in various ways, which is not really apparent in Jen’s work, seems more salient, as does the exchange between poets, though of course this is just my opinion, and again, others are always welcome to write whatever they like. I just don’t think I should be put in the position of having to write what *others* believe. That’s *their* job!)

    Anyway, I apologize that my posting of the grandma’s labia poem led to all of this … it was just my dorky way of acknowledging that I like that kind of stuff–Knoxyness, if you like–and am a fan. I don’t think of her as a wayward lamb; rather, as someone who is doing a lot of work and getting it out there fairly successfully.

    Just doing a simple Google search on Jennifer Knox it looks like she’s fairly well known, at least so far as any poet can be well know, so I’m a little baffled at any suggestion that I might, or that flarf might, be in some way responsible for exluding her from any sort of discussion about poetry, generally–not that that is what you’re implying, but just in case.

    Gary

  20. Amy King Says:
    March 5th, 2007 at 7:51 am eGary,In response to your “you’re kidding” comment – I’m flarfing around. The techniques are/title is available to all, as you aptly point out.

    Thank you, but your grandma poem didn’t “lead to all of this”; apology unrequited. What is “all of this” though and why did you think that?

    Shanna,

    You say you’re a flarfist, and you’re a flarfthusiast. What kind of flarfist are you?

    And when you write, “by flarfing that piece and replacing ‘hands’ with ‘labia’ gary’s poem makes a statement against these kinds of literary moves” … 1) *How* is this making a statement? 2) What statement did you read? 3) What specific aesthetic intent do you imagine led Gary to choose ‘labia’? 4) What does the selection of labia say about Gary and his intended audience? 5) Is the use of “labia” here interchangeable with others from the goofy-yet-provocative stockpile like “assvagina”?

    By the way, the comparison with pussipo is not so close, primarily because pussipos do not spend time outlining/discussing common aesthetics (unless I missed something?) nor have they/we coined a term & promoted/spoken publicly about said nonexistent aesthetic under an equatable term to ‘flarf.’ No one is writing ‘pussipo’ poetry nor trying to employ ‘pussipo’ techniques.

    But in fact, the two common factors that ultimately speak most importantly about both Pussipo and Flarf, as you note, are: they both exist as listservs and are entirely social.

    ~~~

    My eyes are crossing from the long drive up the east coast, so to bed with me now. Thank you both for your replies…

    ~~~

    Knoxyness, the slang blade of Flarf?

  21. Nada Says:
    March 5th, 2007 at 3:23 pm e(this appeared on Ululations a couple few years ago)My Grandmother’s Hands

    My grandmother’s hands
    all covered with sticky goo!
    and anteriorly with whitish bristles

    My grandmother’s hands –
    loose alabaster skin, soft as kid gloves
    covered with deep-fried pork strips

    My grandmother’s hands
    zipping open pale skin
    in a metal bowel

    She then flies to art, and puts on a Perriwig
    valuing herself an unnatural bundle of hairs
    all covered with Powder

    My grandmother’s hands recognize grapes,
    the damp shine of a goat’s new skin
    all covered with sharp chips

    My grandmother’s hands are canaries
    ready to collapse in on themselves
    going screaming and weeping over the facts of the universe

    her tentacles all covered with ashes and ink
    exhaustless and copious, showing forth through dandified forms
    the same absence of special purpose as in nature…

    My grandmother’s hands are sibilant Persian canaries
    pulling an unborn egg
    into the light.

  22. shanna Says:
    March 5th, 2007 at 4:44 pm ei think i already said what kind of flarfist i am, or meant to: i participate on the list and post flarfed things there, but am not very good at it. i have read a flarfy or flarflike poem in public once or twice so far, to good response (i think). i am experimenting and soaking up the very high-level energy. & laughing my ass off. (if it’s not fun, you can probably bet i’m not doing it.) do i like all of it? no. do i dismiss *all* the crticisms of it i’ve seen pop up since it reared its head? no. but i still find it interesting, & personally am finding it challending & not boring. most recently i have adored katie degentesh’s book, for example, & think mike magee & sharon mesmer & nada gordon give outstanding, hilarious performances that i would never have the eggs to. (haven’t seen everybody on the list, but would go to a next flarfest in a second, twice.) so i’m on board.as for the other questions re: gary’s piece, OK this is just my take. i don’t think the word “labia” itself is the point–it’s that they belong to grandma, one, and two, are in a “literary” setting. i could be wrong, but i would bet that gary’s piece was the first to feature grandma’s labia in quite so prominent a position! the aesthetic statement, then, is more about literary appropriateness and taboos. labia themselves are not off-limits in literature/poetry (we’ve already established they don’t freak us out), not by a long shot. but when they belong to grandma, it’s a whole ‘nother story. “labia,” then in this case, does not necessarily carry the same kind of gendered weight that it would in another piece. the point is not the genetalia. the point is to push the boundaries of what is considered seemly or approrpriate *in poetry.*

    nobody would bat an eye if a comedian riffed on grandma’s labia, for instance. and in fact, would probably hoot & cheer. i’ve certainly heard much much cruder things & laughed till i couldn’t breathe.

    the other, or another, aesthetic point gary may (or may not) have had explicitly in mind is the same that many flarf pieces have made (to my mind): the persona/literary speaker/POV/lyric I–whatever you wanna call–is oh yawn *traditionally* a prudish bore who exhibits generally appropriate emotions and ideas, either in content, volume or tone, or if not wholly appropriate, complicates things mainly via “sincere confession” for which the poem’s craft is supposed to magically absolve, etc. as in drew gardner’s “chicks dig war” or (and I hesitate to bring this one up because I never did quite catch up with the discussion in the blogosphere some months back, nor would I want to seem to be dismissing any of those people’s concerns re: racism, which I am definitely not, but here I go mentioning it:) mike magee’s glittering asians piece, the “speaker” is not the poet. nor is he/she anything remotely like the poet (whom i happen to know, but of course not every reader would). this is true of many flarf pieces, as i said, which are often also further fuzzed or diffused by having or admitting multiple voices & noises. it’s a bit like channeling, maybe.

    now, none of that is NEW to poetry or literature at all–personas, masks, dramatic monologues, etc. but for some reason when the voices are really OTT, tone/volume/contentwise, a common reaction is not only against the poem’s speaker, but spills over to the person behind the poem too. i find this interesting, telling. presumably, so do drew and mike (since i’ve used them as examples), tho i think the reaction to these two pieces maybe got a little too interesting at points. ;)

    re: the pussipo comparison, i certainly wasn’t drawing an exact parallel between the two groups. they are quite different as you say. but there were still (and perhaps still are) quite a few people spouting off about what pussipo was and wasn’t doing, almost instantly demonizing it and accusing 160+ women of some kind of vicious feminist groupthink, when really we were all just talking to each other ’bout poems and stuff, mostly. that is the only comparison i meant to make: the negative reaction by some seems disproportionate to the actual activity of the list, in both cases. well, that may not be a very good example. i just used it because it was handy. and i thought you’d know what i meant. by the way, i’m not saying that you picked on flarf that way (tho the “better than flarf” in tandem with “i don’t know flarf” could maybe be examined a bit more, if i wanted to pick on you about that, which i don’t!).

    if the point of your first post was “jen knox is awesome” then why the “better than flarf” stance at all? jen knox IS awesome and may indeed be better than flarf. but her awesomeness has nothing to do with flarf. which is not quite the “reaction against flarf” that’s happened elsewhere, but also doesn’t, i don’t think, have much to do with the flarf poems themselves and more to do with the profile of flarf as a buzzword, something the flarflist has very little to do with, though i think might find fascinating/entertaining. like any publicity (another one of my jobs for years), the tenor/tone of the buzz is not within their control, really, tho they may choose to respond here and there, just like anybody would be tempted to, particularly when the criticism strays (not yours, but frequently elsewhere) from the work to the person. it IS fascinating, & i am actively wondering/thinking about the reasons for it. here are some questions i have: is some of the material just so loaded that the only thing it *can* provoke is offense or revulsion or annoyance? if so, why is this not true for film (from your run-of-the-mill comedies to porn, on a scale), or music (again, from sexually explicit pop to satanic/death metal or certain hardcore misogynistic rap (not generalizing, there is some), or stand-up comedy folks like lisa lampenelli, dave chappel, sarah silverman or sasha baron cohen? what is it about POETRY that its practiioners and audience (overlap noted) can’t or won’t admit the same type of material, which has explosively entertaining/enlivining possibilities in these other artforms, come into play?

    again, those are *my* questions, for myself, really, and of flarf, and of poetry. i haven’t written about any of this stuff elsewhere because i’m still trying to figure out what i think too. i haven’t even talked to the flarflisters about it. mostly i am listening & thinking.

    (busy at work today, so if you reply & don’t right away, that’s why. cheers.)

  23. Gary Sullivan Says:
    March 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pm eAmy,Must one declare one’s self a poet to actually be one? What authenticates? Isn’t that tantamount to founding and joining a cult?

    There are good Christians and bad Christians, just as there are good poets and bad poets, just as there are people who write better poetry in chatrooms, on blogs, on bulletin boards, and in listservs, than most of those who’ve declared themselves poets — so does this artform-that-declares-itself-an-artform-with-appointed-practitioners make room for the unannointed? And if not, isn’t that more cult-ish than Flarf?

    Gary

  24. Amy King Says:
    March 6th, 2007 at 12:16 am eI like that poem, Nada — the tropes it conjures/handles are there/heir-apparent and worth meddling with as you’ve deftly done, though I think “sticky goo” undermines the more serious work, esp of tone, directly after …~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    FOR YOU, AFTER THREE DAYS OF ROAD TRIPPIN’ & SOCIAL GRACES: A POEM DECLARATION

    ~~~~

    “Giant Cheeto Goes Live”

    My cheeto hurts. Someone has cock-blocked
    the tiny buzzard with his own
    appropriated cheeto-inverted, baked in an oven
    only half my size. I’d lub more sauce with that.
    He has casualized his instrument, “The Scarf.”
    He scarfs and scarfs and builds an intestinal
    achievement, while the rest of us pee sleep
    through the lips of our teeth.
    Cheer up, for I am way scared. I am way sacred, I am
    way away, crawling that line ever after to sky,
    the sun that glows, and a Son calling home.
    What if this yellow pain slowly gives way?
    What if the burning?
    What if the oven eliminates a bird of female non-product?
    What if the most boring pulse keeps steady?
    What if product placement?
    What if charging labia is not a grandma after all?
    What if my cheeto burns brighter?
    Who will you tell to escape it?
    The chalk outline outmodes us all.

  25. shanna Says:
    March 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pm eYAY!
  26. Nada Says:
    March 6th, 2007 at 7:55 pm eO lovely! BURN that cheeto baybee!
  27. Robert Says:
    March 7th, 2007 at 5:16 am eFor you, a flarf-ku:Chi toes, scar chasm,
    Lift up the cheesy cheat sheet –
    Holy smegma mine.
  28. Jim K. Says:
    March 7th, 2007 at 2:54 pm eSurrealarf:Wap Goes Trouble

    Hours lay down on asphalt and wiggled loose
    beatle bottle caps on a wig of smoke.
    The mind went back and forward gear
    over a possum eating marshmallows
    with sticky hands on lips, alone
    when fire only wanted a mocha kiss on a stick.
    Poached eggs can’t live in the sun long
    and lanterns arrive from China for the
    next bursting medicine box.
    So plate down at me again, lie-side up:
    I promise pepper, toaster, and my ear.

    :-)
    —Jim K.

  29. Amy King Says:
    March 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm eOMG – it’s contagious!
  30. Robert Says:
    March 7th, 2007 at 4:05 pm e*achoo* (spreads flarf germs)
  31. Jim K. Says:
    March 7th, 2007 at 4:27 pm eWhich? ..heh.. all? you are too, I hope.
    Wasn’t no flarf in the days of Jabberwocky. But jabber it did.
    And ‘wergle flomp’ is the momma, or auntie[?].
    Was the original rapper Lou Reed?…well..Lord Buckley?..
    ..maybe tricksters in African folk-tales.
    Music has skiffle … just a thing to hang around and do: goofin’ on it.
    Danny M. wrote naughty funny word subs. in the bus safety
    manual in 5th grade. Banned for a week.
    Jimmies aren’t a sundae, but you can put ‘em on a sundae.
    Crushed peanuts are good.
    I like to tour the menu. Like to smorgaasborg too.
    It’s all art these days. Open 24 x 7 x gugleplex
    Kurt Schwitters has the bolts…that’s more intense, more crazy,
    less jokey. The Blume is off the rose and blowing buildings away.
    My model of flarf is kind of skiffly.
  32. Jim K. Says:
    March 7th, 2007 at 5:54 pm e(and Wap Goes Trouble is 95% surreal and 5% flarf)
  33. Lee H. Says:
    March 8th, 2007 at 4:31 am eI sat in my office yesterday morning and listened to the panel on online publications—-thanks for posting it, Amy. It was nice hearing about these publications’ histories—in the voices of those familiar with the mission.
  34. Dan Coffey Says:
    March 8th, 2007 at 2:11 pm e“Grandma’s Hands”by Bill Withers is a great song, and sets up some delicious dissonance when played side by side with “Use Me.”That’s all I have to say about Flarf.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s