In Latin America the role of the reader has been a fundamental discussion, almost to the point of total exhaustion. Umberto Eco’s ideas on the open work became greatly popular and the novel Hopscotch by cult figure Julio Cortázar (a sixties meta-novel that gave different possibilities of sequence-reading) helped made this issue a central one. (Cortázar was very explicit on the kind of readers he wanted). (He was later accused of sexist because the called the passive reader a "lector hembra"—female reader—which he later changed to "passive reader").

I was just reading Alan Gilbert’s “re: Reading the Active Reader Theory” included in Tripwire latest number (6). Great magazine. Great piece.

Gilbert is totally right when he states: “Claims for experimental texts become elitist and supercilious when it’s assumed that readers are only activated when they come into contact with the formal devices employed by the avant-garde text”.

But even though Hejinian’s position (commented in the essay) and Gilbert’s are very interesting, they are still somewhat trapped in the alleged difference between a passive reading and an active one.

“Readers and audiences are active with all kinds of texts” (Gilbert). So how can we get rid of the passive-active dichotomy that founded this discussion?

There’s definitively levels of reading, so we got to make distinctions but starting from the consensus that indicates that reading is always active.

Reading, activity. So never again to imagine a passive audience. There's no closed language. So Cortázar and Eco were wrong. And the theorists before and after them that still have some use for "closed" work and similar concepts. "Closed" works don't exist.

The real difference is that some readings produce a another-text (a material one), and others just produce an imaginary text, a psychological and intimate one. This last one leaves no mark on the social visible sphere. It's an activity in which the relationship between subject (reader-audience) and the text is kept private.

The first kind of re-writing (or “reading”) is socially available to others. We may call this kind of text-activity productive reading.

Productive reading produces text-for-others. Leaves a visible mark. It' an activity in which the relationship between subject (reader-audience) and the text is made public.

The other kind of re-writing (reading) is an activity that produces no verifiable/available text to the others. An add on the subway or a book is read, but that reader only produces a private text, a text-for-himself, instead of writing on the add or recombining the signs of the book in a second-one.

This second kind of reader practices consumer-reading. It doesn’t produce a text. It only imagines it.

ShE only consumes texts but makes no effort to socially transform them so others can re-write this re-writing.

The re-writing that happened in this second type of active-reading is only available to others through the changes that the first text provoked on the social behavior (including speech) of the consumer-reader.

Consumer-reading produces a sort of private-text. Even though a "private-text" cannot truly exist, because its leaks to the outside world in many ways. A consumer-reader is contradictory. Her-his activity is not going to remain private.

Once the active-passive reading dichotomy is dead, and we build a second one on the basis of the essential active role of every reader we can start to better understand what kind of readers are we in every instance.

Ones that make our texts (our re-writings) directly available to others—so they can re-produce them


Ones that promote the private-property paradigm of reading, consuming texts but not making those re-writings available to others. Not going public.

Productive-reading makes linguistic private property ultimately absurd. Consumer-reading is capitalistic.

At the end we are both productive-readers of some texts and consumer-texts of others.

But we need to be truly clear on what texts are we just consumer-readers, and what re-writings we decide to disclose for anybody who wants to re-write it (or at least consume it).

We are both kinds of active readers. Deciding when are we one kind or the other is a choice called Politics.



Writing on another writer means friendly fire.


Blogs are post-mediatic. They use the Internet to make critical thinking and rewriting in general faster and faster.

Guattari would be a blogger now. This is--I think--from this last writing before the U.F.O took him:

"To think through this complexity, to renounce, in particular, the reductive approach of scientism when a questioning of its prejudices and short-term interests is required: such is the necessary perspective for entry into an era that I have qualified as "post-media", as all great contemporary upheavals, positive or negative, are currently judged on the basis of information filtered trough the massmedia industry, which retains only a description of events [le petit cote evenementiel] and never problematizes what is at stake, in its full amplitude.

"It is true that it is difficult to bring individuals out of themselves, to disengage themselves from their immediate preoccupations, in order to reflect on the present and the future of the world. They lack collective incitements to do so. Most older methods of communication, reflection and dialogue have dissolved in favor of an individualism and a solitude that are often synonymous with anxiety and neurosis. It is for this reason, that I advocate -- under the aegis of a new conjunction of environmental ecology, social ecology and mental ecology - the invention of new collective assemblages of enunciation concerning the couple, the family, the school, the neighborhood, etc.

"The functioning of current *mass media*, and television in particular, runs counter to such a perspective. The tele-spectator remains passive in front of a screen, prisoner of quasi-hypnotic relation, cut off from the other, stripped of any awareness of responsibility.

"Nevertheless, this situation is not made to last indefinetly. Technological evolution will introduce new possibilities for interaction between the medium and its user, and between users themselves. The junction of the audiovisual screen, the telematic screen and the computer screen could lead to a real reactivation of a collective sensibility and intelligence. The current equation (media=passivity) will perhaps disappear more quickly than one would think. Obviously, we cannot expect a miracle from these technologies: it will all depend, ultimately, on the capacity of groups of people to take hold of them, and apply them to appropriate ends.

I think the appropriate ends are building an international discussion non-organize web of spaces where writing is happening and ideas mutate day to day until many ways of applying them are used in the Politics of Everything.

So, as authors let's die soon and become the next thing we need to become.

Post-literature is the goal. Writing not as a fancy field of culture, but as an element that participes in the reshaping of culture. Just as speech does. Literature needs to imitate speech, not in its style (colloquialism) but in the structure of its movement between individuals.

I hate writing.

Writing is almost socially useless.

In the transformation of writers into something else, Americans are closer to it simply because they are so many. The problem is that you behave like writers who don't know you're supposed to be agents, it seems you're not aware either of your responsability in this late age of capitalism.

But if you already fucked up the world, please feel free to ruin literature too. Rewriting needs to let go its history of identifiable figures. It must become so massive that there's no need to turn writers into activists, but a situation in which everybody is discussing language and getting radical about (that's what a poet is: a radical on language).

[Radical nerds].

An intellectual is a scientist, artist or writer that participes in the public debate. American writers don't exist in the media, nor in the other debate national space I am aware 'America' has, so American writers are not intellectuals.

The United States is a country whose literature produces no intellectuals.

(México produces intellectuals) (I hated Octavio Paz, but at least his ideas on politics counted in the public debate, even though they were the wrong ones) (But now the right wing party that rules wants to diminish the role of the intellectual on our political life). (The want to have to reform the relationship between intellectuals and the State, and achieve a model like the American one).

American intellectuals are Maddonna, Kurt Cobain and now Eminem. They produce more intellectual changes in people than any scientist, artist or writer working now in the U.S.

At least Cobain made nihilism popular among the young.

American writers change only the upper class. High-educated readers. But that's it. They don't appear to care about the the other social classes. They seem to have forgotten Walter Benjamin. ("True literary activity cannot aspire to take place within a literary framework–this is, rather, he habitual expression of its sterility. Significant literary work can only come into being in a strict alternation between action and writing").

The post-mediatic is maybe the last opportunity to have something like 'intellectuals' in the United States.

Experimentalism needs to be applied to politics, to rewrite itself along politics. That's the next step. If American critical thinking in all its forms (including LangPoe and PostLangPoe) doesn't mutate into something that helps shaping the political life (from technology to the elections) it failed.

It fails. What must come next is turning experimental writing and social action indivisible. Poetry becoming an ideology people use all through out their social life.

(The spreading of rewriting or, at least, the invention of intellectuals).

What follows LongPoe is the writing of the post-mediatic world.


"'Scene' is just a nasty word for 'vibrant community'. Party over here! Party over there! I guess I'm a sociophile" (Nada G.)

I have different opinions in my two blogs. In the one in Spanish I encourage scene forming but in this one I'm critical of scenes because I think American poetics is too scene-driven as I said before. To much power exchange. (Bill Marsh from San Diego is basically right on this I think).

Scenes behave like a drug cartel, and they want to make History.

But maybe the real reason of my oppossition is that I'am too fucking tired of the too-many parties we have in Tijuana between bloggers.

I too am a sociophile.

In Tijuana we even resucited a literary bar (called El Turistico) because of the blog boom here. Every weekend we have a party someplace to get totally drunk (or high), talk too much, hear Mexican bar songs or dance electronic music, and see people cheat and then finding the lies the next day in their personal blogs.

So I guess for me 'Scene' is just a nice word for 'party animal community'. Party over here! Party over there! I guess I'm an alcoholic.


A blog without links to other weblogs is a dead-end.

I hate the Back button. Blogs should let us continue jumping from one site to another.

The bigger the better. As big as we can.

Link lists should not be a list of favorites or friends, they should't be an expression of our own interests but as something to let others escape from us.



In we get a system in which there are too many writers out there, “figures” and recognized authors will eventually disappear. Discourse would be constructed in this chaotic overflow of other-people-words, and the lineage of literature would fade away.

In this post-literature stag, writing will no longer have as its purpose the building of Authors, but just the spreading of writing.

(In the history of the spreading of writing, the invention of emails, messenger and chats are far more important than the invention of books)

A reader which just reads and does not write, is just a mother-fucker consumer.

A reader which just reads and does not write believes writing is important and that’s why he doesn’t do it himself.

Reading is kissing somebody else’s ass. Having favorite authors is such a stupid thing.

I personally know that. I even worship some of them. Readers have too much respect for certain figures.

That’s why I hate this kind of readers even more than authors.

We should all become or consider ourselves writereaders, re-writers, active readers.

Authors think they do it themselves. And want to become widely know thanks to it.

Rewriting is, as we all know, the essence of writing. Writing is knowing you’re rewriting and knowing (and this is even more important but less known) you’re going to be re-written.

But this historic rewriting process (The History of Literature) has been slow.

If X, Y, Z are a book, an author of a group of them, as even Bloom knows: X rewrites Y and Y is rewritten by Z.

How slow and boring.

To this moment the History of Literature has been accomplished using burros.

(Books are slow & readings are small).

But with collective (and eventually massive) rewriting resources as e-lists or weblogs, we can accelerate this process.

X publishes something today and makes it available to whoever wants to read it, even if it is unfinished (blogs in the future should let us see how the writer is typing) (and the Internet should let us get into everybody’s computer files), and when X does that, the soon (or even before he has finished somebody!) Z will re-produce that (immediately).

That way somebody’s else writing will not be changed in a book but in day.

People are hiding the process of the actual writing. That’s one of the ways we protect the notion of Author. Hiding our writing until it's finished.

But the Internet should let us end that.

The Internet should even let me know write in somebody else space, interrupt his-her writing with my own, of even copy-paste it from him-her, and leaving him-her without the words she-he was putting together just a moment ago.

(Mentioning names or sources or directly quoting should be prohibited. Only plagiarism should be allowed).

I want to write in a world where right now words by people who I don’t know appear on my monitor-page helping me to write every piece, and as soon as I write a paragraph it has been already modified by two or three people (of software) out there.

If we rewrite as fast as we read and this is done by great numbers, soon nobody will know or care who did what and when did it happened.

Blogs and emails, btw, are unfinished writings asking somebody else to give them new form and engage them in a series of rewritings, “responses”.

But we should have no personal responses, we shoul abolish all causality in writing, all recognizable causality.

She should rewrite what’s appearing on monitors, for example (things by somebody else) so when he-she will put that in those turtles called books, it’s too late: what she-he said first in an open system of reading (like the Internet) it has already been rewriting by many.

Rewriting needs to get faster and faster and faster.

So why the hell is everybody just reading? Do you want the History of Literature to continue or what?

Readers are the reason Authors exist. Blame them.


If my English has some mistakes or typos, correct them, and if you want it take this text and consider it your own.

Or if somebody wants to translate into Spanish, take it too and publish it somewhere.

--But please don’t mention my name.



Theory's task is to make current practices impossible.


Scenes are organized communications channels & departments. Salesmen. Consumers. They can communicate. That’s the Secret. Making Communication Possible. (Brides, bribes and breeding can be part of the story) (Good News for the Left-Out).

The problem is The United States arrived to a stage where the dissolution of the literary system had to happen back in the 70’s.

(Even Disco did it. Disco dissapeared. Poetry got coward).

(Communication is part of the past. We need more disorganized forms of language exchange). (A not-knowing-what's-happening-writing-stage).

Scenes have make Literature continue in the U.S. They are the Grannies that keep Poetry Safe.

Each having its own group. The careers. The car. The Ear.

Writing spread. Now millions are using it.

Overpopulation not of writers, but of general writing in chats, emails, blogs, sites. Even porno is writing a lot.

Writers are loosing the little power they had.

(What hat? The cat asked).

The Hat every body uses to Identify with Others. The Names of the Scenes. The Legos of the Big Ego, the Machine Behind the opinionated keyboard, the concepts that set the discussion.

The leaderships. The chip potatoes they prefer.

All of these still exist. “But the numbers don’t lie”: so many now write that continuing the normal literary exchange would be to not recognize at the proper moment the time when we need to shift from one paradigm to another.

Let's disorganized--the Workman proposed when asking for the strike.

(Pancho Villa would help us with the Huelga. He would bring the margaritas).

Scenes should disappear precisely because they are elites. That’s so clear, even without glasses we can see that.

The Sun rises every day and the scenes wake up with him.

I hope blogs don’t become a scene, because a scene is an elite, a participation system where communication (thanks to the relatively small numbers of members) can happen. Communication: the trick which leads to the exchange of power among intellectuals--building individual works which have a relation to each other and gaining recongnition which gives them power.

Communication among intellectuals lead to circles.

That’s why a scene is obscene, the lady murmured. (Pancho Villa behaved that day like a real gentleman). (He didn't use any of his Latin Lover Pick Up Lines with the New York Times nor with L.A.)

(The Journalist wrote the whole story. He became popular between the disadvantaged intellectuals according to one source).

There's so many poets in the world, why bother to write poetry at all? We can ask. But the objective is non other than to destroy scene-building--

The Future (oh! now the recipe:) The Future is (oh!) (oh!) (oh!) enjoying the impossibility of managing the amount of writers.

Because no poet will be able to read it all, a new way of building texts would happen. Far more complex forms of exchange would occur.

The divas would disappeared. The anthologies. The narrow markets.

The New Frame, finally.

The coming-out of writers after the disappearance of Poets.

That way no body would have to agree with anything some "one" said.

Now my dog "barks". That's part of my bio-Graphy.



Let’s replace the term “I” for “Biography”. I has too much metaphysics in it. BioGRAPHY has the advantage of making clear from the beginning that soul/life/personality/author is another written instance (and not the instance that writes the others). Bio-graphy is the act of being already written by language—and the need to read how we were already culturally-socially written by language in order to rewrite the relation between “ourselves” and society.

Bio(graphy) leaves clear we are a sign of a soul, not the soul itself.

I like the word BioGraphy become it’s a mixture of “Nature”/”Life” and "Culture"/"Language". Not coming back to neither of them.

Biography is already the impossibility of falling into a dualism based on the I vs. Society opposition. In Biography a merge has occurred.

I died.

I hate the Lyrical. But Bio-graphic writing is something I like. It let’s you see the specific circumstances (personal-social) that produce a certain text.

A text which is not biographical (in this broader sense of the word) is a text which tries to abstract the concrete agency that is written by it.

Non bio-graphy sucks.



If blogs turn into a scene it would be an unfortunate situation. I think that American poetry is too scene-driven.


I can only speculate on the reason why that happened. It obviously has relation to the quantities of authors out there—"communication" only being possible building relatively small communities. It has also something to do, if I'm right, with the caesuras that took place in the History of American poetics, it’s division into Mainstream/Avant-Garde--which btw doesn’t happen in Mexico. And, of course, it’s directly linked to the cross-cultural background of the American population and the different languages operating in the U.S. Scene here, scene there. Done that, Seen that.

Blogs shouldn’t become a scene. That’s too boring. Scenes are identifiable. Manageable.

We should think the development of blogs not as a scene but simply as a web.

A series of terminals to other terminals to other terminals.

Dialogue is too simple. At this stage we need a more disordered exchange of signs.

I like the poetics list but it’s too centralized. It works as a Mexican public plaza, and that’s great. But I don’t see why talking can be only conducted in the plaza. No need for such a monopoly. Blogs and e-list can live and combine--and wait for the invention of new technologies that increase the complexity of exchange.

Blogs are mostly individual (which gives them that danger of being an instrument to return to the most basic view on the Writing-I), they are mostly individual but if they are use as a mechanism to travel to other writing-spaces the primitive individual aspect gets lost.

A Blog is a bio-graphy that lets me read how it writes itself and how it writes itself in relation to other bio-graphies (emails, books, magazines, readings, comments, blogs, media) and even writes itself thanks to those just looking.

And in the very practical terrain, Blogs give me for example more context to understand what’s happening in the U.S. Lit Complex. They give me the national-social-personal-local context of different sign producers.

Bio-graphy is one of the pieces that constitutes writing. So I don mind it.

(But if somebody is using the blog as it would use a print-page, something wrong. He-she doesn't understand the blog).

Blogs are a new discussion media.

And blogs are also a new lit event.

“What has X (this specific Url-I/Bio-Graphy) managed to write today?”.

Reading a blog is an event you go into. An event in which author and its work are united in front of others in a specific time-place. Reading a blog es an event you go into.

Just like a reading.

Blogs are space-time entities where a writing takes place. Just like readings do.

A reading. You go there to hear(-here) a BiOral-Graphy.

Well you go to the E-List, you go to the blog, to read a writing that has happen.

So Love the Blog.




Ethnopoetics as: theory-praxis related to crossing the conventional borders between the theory-praxis of our culture and the theory-praxis of other cultures.

Ethnopoetics as: putting into question the way in which our culture became “our culture”, and putting into question how other cultures became “other cultures”.

Ethnopoetics as: thinking about the risks of building an International (paranational) Poetics, when such enterprise could become a tool to make global homogenization easier.

Ethnopoetics as: keeping away from the danger of conceiving the “Past” as another opportunity to extend our extreme consumerism even to where-when we couldn’t. Ethnopoetics cannot become the intellectual branch of the Retro spirit.

Ethnopoetics as: the challenge to acquire a glocal point of view without falling in LiteraTourism.

Ethnopoetics as: the thinking of the language practices of the “Third World”, the “Primitive” and the “Marginal-Alternative”.

Ethnopoetics as: the thinking of our categories as something we inherited and so, something we always need to put into quotation marks (denaturalize language).

Ethnopoetics as: an on-going revision of the past through the point of the present (J. Rothenberg).

Ethnopoetics as: the serious development of an imaginary contemporary ficto-ethnopoetics (A. Schwerner, S. Sarduy, M. Bellatin).

Ethnopoetics as: the self-consciousness of ethnopoetics; a constant destruction of the theory-praxis of ethnopoetics in the past.

Ethnopoetics as: escaping the temptation of looking outside “Western” literature or the “Mainstream” simply because “our” own practices have become exhausted, boring or less attractive.

Ethnopoetics as: preventing that “our/their” practices are not misused by the “West” simply because the “West” is exhausted, bored or in market-driven-decay.

Ethnopoetics as: criticism against the use of other-poetic-practices as a resource to revitalize a dominant (but tired) tradition. As if poetics from other cultures could be use in the same pattern as oil or any “natural” or “cultural” resource from other cultures used for its own good.

Ethnopoetics as: helping to make traditions maintain a real diversity, with or with out the building of common ground (axis).

Ethnopoetics as: the belief that traditions around the world must be different, polar, or even incompatible.

Ethnopoetics as: politics referring to the conservation of “nature” or “city” that made/makes possible the existence of specific poetics practices in certain communities.

Ethnopoetics as: politics referring to the conservation of the languages that make possible the existence of specific poetic practices in certain communities.

Ethnopoetics as: the impossibility of dividing general poetics from specific politics.

Ethnopoetics as: a reflection on the concept of hybridization, cross-breeding, etc. in the areas related to languages and language in general (in general?)

Ethnopoetics as: anthropology + philosophy + Cultural Studies + Literature + Another

Ethnopoetics as: the study of the poetic practices of “minorities” by “majorities”.

Ethnopoetics as: the study of the poetics practices of “majorities” by “minorities”.

Ethnopoetics as: Counter-conquest (Lezama Lima).

Ethnopoetics as: Anti-translation (Nathaniel Tarn).

Ethnopoetics as: The End of “Orientalism” (Edward Said).

Ethnopoetics as: a radical critique of any attempt to “understand” (dominate?) the discourse and works of other cultures without building an effective dialogue in which the “others” can directly reply to interpretations.

Ethnopoetics as: a study and experimentation of individual or communal language-combinations such as Frenglish, Portunhol, Spanglish, etc or the presence of various languages in a poetic space.

Ethnopoetics as: the study of the combination of several cultures that “share” “one” language, or use traditionally separated strata from that “one” language, resulting in a cross-cultural (ethnopoetic) work “without” having to go “outside” “one” “culture” (i.e, the work of José Kozer as using the different Spanish languages around Spain, the U.S. and Latin America, or the use of different levels/vocabularies/social classes of English by Bruce Andrews in the U.S.).

Ethnopoetics as: an exercise of using other (cultures-)languages (away from Mother Tongue) as an alternative to becoming “Translated” or “Translating”.

Ethnopoetics as: the study of the shifts in cultural paradigms on the poetic subject since the explorations of contemporary ethnopoetics (from the poet as “shaman” to “rockstar” to “D.J.”).

Ethnopoetics as: a strategy to leave behind “ethnopoetics” as a curious branch (60’s related) of literature and make it inseparable of poetics, until the term is useless for being so obvious and fancy,

Ethnopoetics as: the analysis of the international/global/intercultural field open by technology.

Ethnopoetics as: a radical exploration of the Internet as an experiment on ethnopoetics.

Ethnopoetics as: an experiment away from paragraph & line. If ethnopoetics has deepened the exploration of orality, the pictoric, other-forms-of-writing, non-page-formats, etc, as available resources for our own purposes, it’s necessary to see all those explorations as a first stage to finally leave paragraph and line behind.

Ethnopoetics as: “ethno” as the permanent prefix of every poetics. “Ethnopoetics” not just applying to the poetics of the “Other”.

Ethnopoetics as: the radical search beyond the End of Translation.



Every poem should be a crossword or a puzzle. Reading is just not enough anymore.

At least, it should be universally understood that poets always leave some deliberate mistakes in the poem so others can find them.

(Or even better: any poem should be constructed with lines exclusively made up of ‘mistakes’ so not even a Great poem is considered a good poem).

And if poems were always crosswords or puzzles, the reader would never be completely sure the 'original poem' is really as her-his solution is.

Poetry would be not the act of writing, but letting other do the factual writing. That’s what ‘reading’ needs to go.

Poets would be anonymous figures, btw. (The Abduction of the Author).

Poets should wear masks, as Mexican wrestlers do.

And if they give a bad reading, their mask should be removed and their faces revealed so their career becomes virtually over.

Over. Finished!


The History of Art is in danger. Even our kids have turned out to be artists.



"Silence", a retro experience.


To not deal with a blank page but with a page (a screen) full of earlier words, of somebody else’s materials. (Several one’s). Writing = waste management.

Everything that is going to be read, must be read on the screen.
And then we should recycle.

(The famous sign on the box). (The white one). (The Rabbit).

Never again a page that cannot be easily copy-paste. (A Mandate).

“We don’t have much time left” (Star Trek). “So we should write only for the screen or save writing in files and send them to everybody else” (click Forward).

“There is no more time left to write” (the Captain).

"This is time to put into practice all that crap about the Big L."

( I’m tired of It. The “L”! )



What you do in front of the monitor is not "reading". (Duality ended). (Subject to Subject didn't exist. So, "reading" never really happened). (It was all a mistake: A misunderstanding). (Language is really sorry, really sorry, for the loss of the "two of you").

Who cares about the Death of the Author? That's an old issue. Barthes is boring and Fuck Foucault. The Death of the Reader is what's happening now. (You're dying). (Hyperlinks did it, the abscense of a material book representing the body of the Other, did it also. The self-consciousness of being the real supporter of meaning did it. Etc.)

(C'mmon! Can somebody please fully develop this theory?) I could do it. But I need time to write in Spanish and live in Tijuana. (My English breaks a lot). (A lot).

What happens in the monitor is not reading anymore. (I hated the Reader, anyway). (sHe was or pretended to be nothing but a client, a consumer of texts).

So, you're not a reader anymore.



When Gertrude Stein wrote Mexico. A Play (1922) she was thinking of Spain. "We believe in Mexico". Sometime I do too. Sometimes I do. But "don't please me with Mexico". "Do you like repetion. Yes I like repetion".

Gertrude Stein was the first Western writer to clone, not write. To clone writing. That's why.

The other day I heard an American politician say in the news (to promote the banning of every type of cloning): "Cloning is cloning is cloning is cloning".

He didn't realize he was cloning in a double way: first cloning Gertrude Stein's phrase and even improving her (cloning clonation is superior than cloning a rose--even if a rose is a rose is a rose, after all a rose is just a rose), and then making the sign "cloning" clone itself to infinity...

So his anti-cloning phrase turned out to be the best definition, defense and example of what cloning is.

Cloning is cloning is cloning is cloning...



The failure of the American Poet is to arrive to the 21th Century and to not have any real relevance in the order of its own society. America is about to commit (again) murder but even the leading American poets cannot do anything to prevent that or to publicly denounce war in an effective way.

I read many of the magazines, the famous Buffalo E-list, the books, I follow the sites, the history of the development of the different avant-garde scenes, and my question is: what’s the specific social purpose of such display of marvelous intelligence?

Was defeating the Official Verse Culture all their purpose? They did it. They even took more risks than the first waves of counterpoetics. So, was what all they wanted to do? I mean, that's remarkable. That inscribed them in the History of Literature without no doubt.

But what about reality? Do they fear loosing their jobs at the universities? Are they not inclined to social action? Are they Republicans? I don’t know. I don’t know them. I just read them as an outsider, as a Mexican observer. Maybe the left has no meaning in the U.S. I think that might be the cause. They just might be happy.

Language poets are far superior than the beats, but the beats at least served as social figures, as icons or something. Language poets! I hate them—I mean I keep reading their books, and they are wonderful, almost as great as Borges or European philosophers like Baudrillard or Virilio, for example. But do they care about the specific life of the political city? They have the right ideas, they are brilliant, they have some power, so? They should take the next step. But I don’t think they are going to do that... so we are going to continue to read them forever. Well, I cannot deny that seems a very nice situation for me. I enjoy their books. They give me intellectual pleasure.

But the problem remains: at the beginning of the 21th Century even the best American poets have no social role in the world. This is the central failure of the American avant-garde.

What went wrong?



Of all the Language poets Michael Palmer is the most translatable one into Spanish. He is almost a Huidobro. He would be a hit once translated and distributed widely in Latin America.

I think as a poet he is wonderful, but somehow he is the least interesting to me. I mean, he is lyrically powerful, but doesn’t deliver that same odd feeling the Language poets do.

60% of Hejinian, 35% of Andrews, 40% of Silliman, 33% Bernstein, 45% of Perelman is translatable into Spanish.

I enjoy them precisely because of that.

In Spanish they wouldn’t make any sense. In Spanish they would sound(-mean) as terrible poets.

That’s why they are Language poets.