We are organizing some anti-war protests. That's the reason I haven't been posting stuff lately. Below the info according to Yahoo News. Not very accurate. They invented those songs. And it was a lot more tense then what this note suggests. At one point, several agents from the Immigration Service came right on the spot where MX and US divide and tried to took from American flags from protesters. At least one was burned. Some English was used on the mic. The agentes didn't like that. Some of the English signs said things like "Oil for Food, Sincerely Bu$h", "We don't have a war, we have a Nafta", "Iraq was emBUSHed by a nazi", etc. The note says TJ has a million people. It has 2 million. The census doesn't show all of them, in order for the government not to give TJ all the money it should. Everybody knows that. This last protest was being held at the crossing point, where cars (40 thousand daily) go into the U.S. Most of this last protest was very peacefull, but the anti-war movement is growing rapidly in Mexico, even though the border regions tends to be more silent about, because of fear to lose their American visas or things like that. The American agents took video of all of us, and of course that makes people nervous. Anyway, here's the Yahoo info.

Students, rights activists march for peace on U.S.-Mexican border city

Sat Mar 29, 6:03 PM ET

TIJUANA, Mexico - Wearing black ribbons and singing songs critical of the war, hundreds of young people marched through this teeming border city Saturday to protest the military conflict in Iraq (news - web sites).

Human rights activists, religious groups and students from various schools led the protests, which began in Tijuana center and ended simultaneously at the San Ysidro bridge spanning the U.S.-Mexican border and at the theater of a local university.

"Look, just around the corner, here comes (U.S. President George W.) Bush, bombing," they sang. "With the world watching and clothed in lies, he says that they are winning. And where there are other tyrants, he barges in to replace them, possessed by the oil devil."

Saturday's demonstration was the fourth anti-war march held in this city of nearly 1 million people across from San Diego, California, since the Iraq war began on March 19.

Some of the demonstrations have taken place in front of the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana.

Recent polls have shown that as many as 80 percent of Mexicans are against the war, along with President Vicente Fox (news - web sites), who held firm against pressure to support the U.S. and British military campaign in Iraq.

Small groups of anti-war protesters have set up permanent camp in front of the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City and are conducting fasts at the Independence Monument nearby.




In Mexico our "president" (Vicente Fox) and Bush are so identified (The Two Cowboys) (Fox is Proud of Using Boots) as one power model that one of my best friends invented the phrase Fush = Box.


Those NY and SF and other big protests that got into our Media helped people outside the U.S. (and I imagine it obviously did the same for people inside) to reinforce the idea that Americans do think and do act sometimes, and do understand they need to stop its really stupid and (am)vicious goverment.


I don’t think Frida is a great movie. There’s a better Mexican film on the life of Kahlo. And I too think the Oscars stink. A lot of people kissing each other’s ass, a man trying to be so-so-funny, the “Academy”, etc. B2.

“B2” being the metaphor for BasicallyBullshit.

But I am happy some O(scar)-people spoke out against the war. Left some people something to discuss about.

Millions of people see the O(scars). This ceremony helps define what “American culture” “means”. "Popular Culture" "Massive Entertainment" (differents quotes).

Even though I think those [HollyEDwood] artists don’t really understand what art is, seeing in TV the out spoken ones I though that was something which seems to me respectful. Having some courage and finding a way to increase the opposition to the war.

That’s what we need to do: increase the number of people against the war in any way possible—make war unpopular.

So I was saying I don’t like Gael García. He is “Too-Good-Looking”—to quote Being and Time by Heidegger.

[In Mexico, Heidegger's book translation has a translation which makes the book twice impossible to understand. People in Mexico were freaked out by Heidegger].

The 0-Ceremony tried to make the “artists” feel so Proud of being part of this “Art / Movies” elite (the host’s routine was design to be a comment on how funny-and-wonderful (“I’m crying!”) “Hollywood” is—but at moments somebody said something that make a little bit more sense than all that 95% B2 happening in the O-Ceremony.

Some of the participants and The O-C and The Actors were worry they would seem as a Frivolous Million Dollar People in a time when an American war against a country was happening.

The first one was this young MX actor who I truly hate [Heidegger again]. Somebody had commented earlier in the O-C something on peace but this MX actor who I hate said it more clearly. He said that if Frida Kahlo would be alive right now, she would be against the war. And I thought that was fine.

As a presentator he wasn’t supposed to talk on the war. Before him, somebody that won an Oscar and was part of the Frida crew, said something on the political art of Mexico. A “celebration” of that. (Trying to make Mexican feel loved by the U.S.! “O Frida I Love You”—the sticker).

So I guess I should be happy that the political some how appeared on this Hollywood ceremony in a context were the sign “Frida” had appeared.

Even though I tend to believe most Americans appreciated Lila Downs for the wrong reasons—she is a “Mexican” and Looks like Frida!"

Oh What a cute little girl that sexy Salma is! The Beautiful Mexican! The Exxo-N-ticos!

(Hollywood Goes Nafta!)

I don’t like when people try to be Mexican-friendly (Naftacans) (Nafta-Americans) (Nafta-mexicanosa) (Nafta= )

I don’t even like Frida Kahlo anymore. She is part of the art MX older people like. My grandma used to be a Frida fan. But now "Frida" is nothing but an Exportable Female Cool Leftist Andy Warhol, a Model Of The Hybrid Look.

But the question of the political appearing in this popular culture event is an interesting Media event.

The Media knows its role in the recent years has been increasingly pro-government, pro-“globalization” (movies are part of the hegemonic ideology—propaganda). And that was part of why some of the less stupid actors said something critical on the structure of the O-C and/or against “Bush”.

After the MX Actor a second speech against the war took place. The filmmaker Michael Moore started saying “We like non-fiction”.

‘I like documentaries, because I like non-fiction... In a country where an election is a fiction… fictitious president... and is going to war for fictitious reasons... We opposed this war… shame on you Mr. President.. your time is up!’

Part of the actors didn’t like the political anti-war anti-Bush speech he gave. The routine-comedian (Funny Dady) later tried to lessen the meaning of that statement by Michael Moore saying something on how Michael Moore was helped by the teamsters to get in his limousine. How funny! "Language is so fun!"

Then a few others said something against the war. But more “emotionally”.

Others talk about Family (and the TV adds were terribly conservative, and most of the O(scars) were about the Oscars! What does it mean to be a O(scar) people! An Artist! TV! The Movies! The History of Us! The Great Ones!"

That Non-Fiction thing was the good thing on that event.

Even though I do like Pedro Almodovar. But he wasn’t so clearly political. He “read”.

So We like Non-Fiction is now one of my ten thousand slogans.

I would like to think Frida Kahlo’s spirit (being political) had something to do with O-artists letting themselves speak out against a stupid government.

That O-C was 5% fun.

Do "artists" (the O(scars)) ("intellectuals") really mean something when they write or speak about ideas like “art is important” or say something on “the transforming power of art”?



The embedded journalists remain "free" and "objective" even though they were trained by the Army and survive thanks to them. They are part of the American army and part of the American propaganda of war.

I wonder if there are embedded writers in the U.S.


Why is the American gvmt now invoking the Geneva Convention (not to show POW's in TV) but nothing like this was even mentioned when these prior days the American media shown images of POW's on their knees, following orders from American soldiers and being detained by them?

What's the difference. The U.S. gvmt is using bigger propaganda.



They are quickly changing the name-of-the-war with "titles" like Day A: Shock and Owe to make TV-Audience have the same "feeling" TV-Audience has toward Hollywood/movies.

The Same Feeling of Joy (Away from Work) (The Family) (The Kids!) and "The Same Feeling of Everything Is Going to End Up Very Well

Happy Ending.



ABC says polls show "most Americans agree with George Bush and see no alternative to war". ("72% aprove the war; 53% strongly").

If those "polls" are accurate "most Americans" are misinformed.




Nations still exist. The U.S. government behaves like nations don’t exist or should not exist.

Bad idea.


The American Embassy in Mexico City is now being the site of flag burning, protests and chanting against Bush. Aprox. 500-800 people there. Most of the participants come from UNAM and are ideologically from the left (that university has a strong marxist background).

Early today I saw on a CNN affiliate a report on the Mexico City protest; the American commentator said he wasn’t sure if the majorities of Mexicans felt like that. The curious thing was that he didn’t said anything when other cities around the world were shown doing basically the same type of protests. He didn't like Mexican doing the same. Germans can do it. The French can do it. "But Mexicans?"

I wonder what would the reaction of American society and its government be if at one point Mexico become notoriously “anti-American”.


Yedda Morrison writes in an email:

I'm not sure how well the press is covering regional anti-war demonstrations (I suspect not well) but I wanted to give a peak into what is going on here. I spent the greater part of the afternoon and evening in the streets of downtown san francisco where thousands of protestors and hundreds of police officers in riot gear have been facing off all day. The strategy for the protestors seems to be to disrupt "business as usual", particularly in/near the federal building and the financial district. The result was probably the worst 12-hour traffic jam in San Francisco history- hopefully, that’s not all it was. When criticized by frustrated motorists and the occasional pro-war
citizen, the most common response I heard was "yeah, well war is inconvenient."

Starting at 6:30am and continuing throughout the day, protestors moved from intersection to intersection sometimes following and other times being followed by the police. While many drivers (especially cab drivers trying to earn a living) were clearly outraged, many motorists turned off their cars, waving and honking in encouragement. For the most part the demonstrations were peaceful although a group throwing bottles and such wounded several cops. I also saw several protestors (mostly very young women and men) struck by billyclubs and dragged to police vehicles after they were handcuffed. Many retail stores put up their metal gates but as far as I could see no looting occurred. The police seemed particularly vigilant when the demonstrations neared the high-end retail stores in and around Union Square. The last count I heard was over 1,300 protestors arrested.

In the early morning, and again around 5pm, the crowd moved onto several freeway on-ramps to the Bay Bridge. Roughly 500 officers in full riot gear (on foot, on motorcycles and in cars) blocked us off, attempting to surround the demonstrators. It was amazing to be in the middle of literally hundreds and hundreds of people lying down or sitting in the middle of the freeway chanting "no war," "no blood for oil." At this point another 30 or so arrests were made.

The protestors seem to be from every socioeconomic background, from sixties liberals, to labor organizers, to young business types, to families-- many with children and dogs in tow. One man with his two very young sons was criticized by several police officers for exposing his children to danger. "My children" he roared, "what about the children of Iraq."

I got on BART around 9pm at which time there seemed to be more cops than protestors in the streets. It's clear however, that more civil disobedience is planned for the morning commute and many protestors were gathering to hold candlelight vigils at various locations throughout the night.

Whether you agree with these tactics or not (it seems the so called puke-in at the federal building is getting some press), its encouraging to see so many people gather together with the singular desire to speak out against war. The administration may not pay a bit of attention, but at the very least we can take some comfort in the knowledge that theirs is not the only voice- that this is not a time of complete passivity, or crippling apathy- that the peace movement (as fractured, disorganized and ineffective as it may be)- is still very much alive.

Love, Yedda PS. for more SF info and photos go to www.indybay.org

There cannot exist anything as "Smart Weapons". Weapons are the dissappearance of intelligence. No Smart Weapons possible. Just smart ways of twisting language.

The K-Mart Age of Propaganda.


Poetry is not enough.

Still discussing HOW complex the Text (iT!) should be?

Literary discussions.

“The anthologies!”

The goal is becoming the cleverest of all?

Look elsewhere —the pizza delivery service said on the phone.

To write away from the norm, of course.

But if writing against the war is not enough, writing away from the norm is not enough either.

Writing in an island is not a process.

The role of poetry is not just to question the norms imposed-implied by/in ($) the (normative) hegemonic language, but to explore the ways this questioning may change the practice-construction of language through out all of society—not only influencing the writings of intellectual who discuss what the role of poetry is not.

What’s is going to be the role of writing in this century?

Let’s not care about its role in Humanity (the Aesthetic!), let’s just focused in this new century. In this decade. This war. Let’s trust future writers find their own solution in the future. What’s the role of writing in our world? Now.

Writing Against Norms? “Experimentalism”?

Is “experimentalism” our social role as writers?


A process achieves. And then continues—leaving behind whatever it achieved. Process doesn’t need to worry about the result it produces. A “result” is always going to “appear” as long as process happens in company of others (reception).

Process becomes a result (an It) (Something) (a Product!) when it is consumed by the “Other”.

Process is not an abstraction.

No matter how complex and ambiguous writing is, it becomes an It.


Translated Into—

But luckily the nature of self-reflection is to arrive and then loose whatever it formed.

Process doesn’t not end with the IT it socially becomes.

Process results in points of departure for more processes. We don’t need to choose either/or process/result.

Process advances.

The text is not the issue in itself. But what is its place in society.

What critical language achieves along its never-ending process.

Achieves historically.

Process advances.

If the bridge between writing and society was “still” there, then the issue would be how complex the writing must be in order to continue challenging and being an alternative to normative-authorities-fixed structures.

But there’s no bridge. (Now:) A writer: An island.

No process there.

The bridge.

Continuing experimentalism, yes, of course but not for the sake of having this So-Much-Complex discourse than that of the government and/or normative social languistic practices.

Bridges are needed to have some interaction between the advanced writing of an epoch and the total social complex. To build a more complex language and to not use it against the King is to behave like the King.

Alienation is never a process.

No bridge now. Writing in these circumstances is not enough.


American experimental writers are afraid of becoming intellectuals.

Participating in the public debate.

The imago of the “intellectuals” brings to their mind the role of the preacher, the “shaman” (via counterculture), the populist language technician (sloppy mainstream intellectual figures), the demagogue and the failed Modern intellectual.

They don’t want to become the Imago. They feel critically safe from becoming the Imago remaining teachers-academics-readers-authors.

That’s looks like the reason they turn away from effectively opposing normative language exactly in the moment they need to engage in the effort of bringing normative language into public debate.

Americans seem to feel using writing or their knowledge outside their already-conquered-domain (experimentalism) is going to lower their complexity. Damage the History of—

The Imago controls them.

The Imago keeps them afraid of the Imago.

But the Imago isn’t real.


Ten People I would call Experimental Writer

1. A non-mainstream writer making some mainstream media invite him-her to a program and saying there something rarely said in mainstream Radio or TV.
2. An experimental writer having a radio or TV program that deals with language and power in very complex and concrete ways.
3. A writer launching a campaign to remove a Senator from his chair.
4. A poet screaming to the President he’s a creep.
5. A writer sabotaging macro-technology.
6. A writer whose writings the police doesn’t understand and hence cannot use against him-her when she-he gets arrested.
7. A writer that prevents or destroys a specific institutionalization of globalization. A McDonalds.
8. A writers who forces her-his government to force him-her into exile.
9. A writer that gets elected into office.
10. A writer that does something never before done by a writer.

Interesting comments by Kent Johnson and Bill Marsh on the Bernstein Enough!


PAN is very right wing. Almost as bad as the Republicans. PAN is run by empresarios pendejos (stupid businessman) who are just very illiterate, and have no respect for intellectual life (nor feel they even need to give the impression of respecting writing) in a country where respect for language is very high.

3 examples (real ones I swear) of recent PAN rulers showing their love and knowledge for literature!

The MX President calling Borges in a speech "Borgues". The "u" changing completely the pronunciation and almost transforming Borges (considered one of the highest manifestations of Latin American culture) either into a Burgués (bourgeois) or a Hamburger.

The (Mexican) national director of Conaculta—equivalent let's say to the (American) National Endowment for the Arts—when asked if she had ever read "El Dinosaurio" (a short story) by Augusto Monterroso (Central American writer) said she had already bought the book but still was in the process of finishing it.

“When he woke up, the dinosaur was still there”. (That’s how long the dinosaur is) (“El Dinosaurio” is a famous micro-short-story. Declared by Italo Calvino the shortest one of all.

The Labor Secretary made her daughter’s high school expelled the Literature professor (a young woman studying drama in UNAM) because she read at class Aura by Carlos Fuentes, an “immoral” nouvelle where a couple fucks in the presence of the little black crucifix every Mexican bedroom wall has.

When several writers protested when the PAN tried to make tax on books higher and wanted to remove the tax breaks writers and artist had, the most important PAN Senator and former presidential candidate declared to the Media he couldn’t understand why people listen to writers, those “fellows who have no decent way of living”.

The moment PAN came into power, the MX intellectual became under attack. PAN wants to turn them socially irrelevant.

But neutralizing MX intellectuals is not going to be so easy. Since the PRI, some intellectuals had a place on the media, and others dominated certain universities and national newspapers, something which even increased with the same “democratization” process that put Fox in power in 2000. Another factor that strengthening the consciousness of some intellectual circles in Mexico was the Zapatista uprising (1994), a process that resuscitated the Left (the return of the leftist intellectual, involved with social movements). The increase of Americanization also politicized intellectuals. Social apathy between intellectuals (young and mature) started to not be so hip after all.

So, erasing the role of the intellectual is not going to be as easy as the PAN would want. PAN wants to turn Mexican intellectuals into “American” ones. Symbolical figures. Merely aesthetic references. Laugh-at eccentric minorities.

The PRI is not going to return. No way. But PAN is not either going to last much. Too “American”.


Through out the 20th Century writers who became leaders of their fields in writing could become respected as public figures. This happened because intellectuals (like José Vasconcelos or the muralistas) played a big role on the ideological construction of the post-Revolutionary period (beginning in the 20’s). That was the moment, the Mexican intellectual had its moment of victory: making writing and art a structure that could directly influence politics.

Have a good level of participation inside public debate.

But when the Left went into credibility or effectiveness bankruptcy (from the 70’s to the 90’s), writers in Mexico started to feel the role the intellectual was fulfilling was nothing but playing with fire with the State. Getting to closed or seduced by it.

Nihilism spread. Being apolitical became cool between the younger generations.

I, for example, was formed when that atmosphere was well established. Paz disciples weren’t so political as him. They were nothing but rich kids that had read Marxism but had decided to quit because they felt Marx was passé.

And other groups (younger ones who had no relation to the 68) (the student massacre that divided Mexican history into two) just didn’t feel they should play a social role. They were the children of complete disenchantment. They still behave like Houllebecq in France.

The Mexican intellectual is in a crisis because of four reasons:

1. The new party of power wants to get rid of intellectuals in the process of their globalization project they’re very clearly pursuing.

2. The Intellectuals loosed credibility during the second half of the Century. And the remaining ones are now old, dying.

3. The new intellectuals wanted to take no place in this corruption of the intellectual role and were literary conservative, non class/gender/race conscious. That’s the reason for example feminism still has no being popular.

4. As an effort of wining them over, Salinas and even before him constructed a system of grants, prices and jobs for writers and artists, and so making established and young writers-artists feel as dependant on government money or favors. And thus making, in the one hand, the intellectuals lazier and conformist or even corrupt, and on the other hand, making the rest feel they wouldn’t have no credibility to criticize the government after receiving money from it.

But now, beginning of the 21th Century this is starting to change and before the MX Intellectuals becomes dead the attitude is changing. The roles the intellectual has gained on the media, the government and civil society are historical triumphs we cannot see disappear.

Not know when radical activism and transforming the media, the government and society is crucial to the survival of our culture.



The U.S., a Crazy Democracy.

Camille Roy

Camille Roy's blog has been updated. Take a look: here.



Juarez and Tijuana are Mexican border towns that were born too late to be part of the Mexican National Project (aka Mexico City) and, at the same time, arrived too soon to the New World Order.

Nafta was the day the Mexican and the American governments decided to turn all of Mexico either into Juárez or Tijuana.

You choose!

That's why that same day the Zapatista Army in Chiapas announced their war to the Mexican government and its alliance with foreign interests.

In the last ten years, Juárez has lived a social disaster. The Mexican corruption and the spreading of poverty, along with the globalization’s processes have turned Juárez as the example of the hybrid experiment gone wrong.

In the ten last years 300 women have being sexually abused and then killed and disposed outside the city, the Chihuahua dessert or outside the maquilas.

Some say the real numbers is up to 500-800.

Absolute impunity. ABSOLUTE. Not even the U.S. government operates in this manner.

These women have this in common: they were poor (25% worked in the maquila), had no car, were young and lived in the outskirts of the city.

Those zones which were produced by the Mexican government’s lack of will to end poverty.

Who’s killing them?

People say that the killers are drug-dealers, the Mexican police, young-rich-men ("juniors"), American serial killers (and copy-cats), satanic sects, maybe snuff, gangs, non-identified groups. Every body.

Killing women. A sport.

There’s not only one type of organization or serial killers operating, but many. The Mexican government is behind them. Authorities.

The drug cartels must be behind this too. Juarez has one of the three major drug cartels in Mexico (along with the Tijuana Cartel and the one from the Gulf). But saying “drug-dealers” means the Mexican police and the system of American ties (from consumers to American dealers) these organizations have.

The maquilas don’t care either, they not only have profited by poverty (paying their employees salaries of less than 50 dollars a week, for example) but also by helping creating Juárez urban (anti)map—immigration provoked by the maquila system has reshaped the city in a disasterous way (same in Tijuana)—no public transportation—women walking to their homes after the work day ended, from half to 2 hours—the buses from the factories leave them far from they live.

Juárez is depressing. Machismo rules there. Mexican and American man benefit from this situation created by both cultures.

Maquilas in Juárez have just not provided any real protection for their female employees.

I worked on a TJ maquila (Verbatim Co.) to help pay mi university tuition, and believe me, for these companies, their workers are nothing but cheap labor ad human shit.

The Juárez killing field is going to continue. The Mexican government refuses to take the case from the state government of Chihuahua (which it is trying to deny the killing are continuing today) and the media is hiding everything.

The MX TV is controlled by two pro-government families-companies). (Reality shows (mainly Big Brother), gossip from the entertainment business, and stupid soap operas is what dominates TV. So the dead women from Juárez are rarely an issue on the mainstream media.

The government and the media don’t want to do anything, not only because they are themselves the killers, but also because the existence of this social disaster brings to the table a bigger political context.

The forces behind this crimes are the result of Machismo + Globalization.

And just today some independent papers announced it looks like the killing are spreading in other states along the MX-US border. Now some bodies (same pattern) have appeared in Tamaulipas.

The only thing everybody knows for sure in this series of feminicides is that they’re going to grow.

Machismo, impunity, poverty, globalization are not going to go away.

So, we are just in the tenth year since the bodies started to be officially counted. The future seems fine, doesn’t it?

Forgat to say something. At least 300 dead women have being found.

But there are 4000 reported missing.


aphorism (a genre on silence)

When a critic-reader discovers the method(s) and meaning(s) of poets / fiction writers, these start to use silence as part of their new method.

Silence stinks.

the new new

Kool Aid.

118 %


And in his hands the newborn held a pro-abortion sign.

The soul only lives 9 months.

(A solution to the Ioke).

(Jeopardy running poetry).


Marxism. A luxury!

I adore Adorno!

Te adoro Adorno!


A deorodant.

Teen Spirit.

Yes, Nirvana!


We are the Line Fan Club!

(Viet Nam)


Every time I hear someone who wants to find the truth (what’s really happening”), I think he is jealous.

(A Quote)


What I like most about blogs is that no matter what you write here, it doesn’t look too intelligent.

Blog templates are generic and dumb.

Anything you put here looks childish (the worst one is that old robot) and simplistic.

We look like the fifties. Blogs are the cartoon Era of visual e-writing.

Anything you write in them looks like something directly written in the do-it-yourself yellow pages of the right wing.

No matter what html improvements you do to your blog, it’s still going to look primitive. And if you have a cool blog, you’re just not a real blogger.

(Embrace this context. You’re just a writer. You don’t deserve anything better).

Blogs look like the Third World of the prose “universe”.

(You know, aphorisms… they are so… so… so…. you know!

close the )

Not even the universities look so old. Every blog template looks like a bad trip.


Let’s face it: blogs are a perfect way to say good bye to your credibility.

(Authority. Wasn’t it nice to have one?)

The perfect way to say good bye to the the remaining credibility you had after deciding to become a poet.

A poet.

A poor E. T.


Why are blogs that include poems so boring?

Because poems are boring!

Poems want to Remain!

(Oh I deserve Italics!)

(My dog knows me because he quotes me!)

A blog post is a draft which is published.

(The Return)

Poems are more “serious”.

They even like to get printed.

Poems even reinforced prose in order to become the object of admiration and analysis.

Poetry is part of high culture —an orgasm.

Poetry is always a nostalgia.

“How language should be use”.

What grandma tells us.


A trailer.



I like SDPG (Bill Marsh). Have you read it? Check it out: SDPG



I wasn’t in Tijuana when Silliman wrote on his blog about Brian Kim Stefans definition of a “Creep” (Radiohead dixit) group/generation/archipelago of poets in the post-langpo attitude/contexts/agencies. But just return and read those blogs, I and lost my sleep. Far too engaging. So I re-read Stefans’ original essay and then re-read K. Silem Mohammad’s piece (“Creeping it Real”) on Tripwire-6 and then his Lime Tree Blog on that also.

I like people disagreeing. That’s the only reason I visit my family often.

And this Creep-y-ology is I think a decisive discussion.

I been studying American poetics for some years now, from the Avant-Garde to the Counterpoetics and the LangPoe and more recently the after-stuff.

And this Creep’s discussion feels to me—as an outsider reader—just like those pieces that in the past have started the rethinking and the re-articulation of poetics in the U.S.

BKS responds to Silliman with a WeB-maiLOG:

«I try not to respond to writing about my writing to avoid the “echo chamber” effect and also to curtail any elevated sense of self-consideration about what I am doing, since, after all, like everyone else I probably think a bit too much about what I am doing, what people think I am doing, etc. Better to pretend it's not happening, like in that Roy Lichtenstein painting of that woman drowning, and the thought bubble saying “This is not happening.” »

But I don’t think the Lichtenstein reference is right, because it feels like this Creep difference is really happening.

As another Radiohead song goes (“Idioteque”):

We're not scaremongering
This is really happening, happening
We're not scaremongering
This is really happening, happening

KSM by his own side says Silliman’s response is somewhat resistant to accept a separation is happening in the experimental generational system:

« I can't help but be amused at the consistency with which Ron grabs every opportunity to point out that these younger poets may be talented and all, but they sure don't have the political rigor and integrity of their generational big brothers and sisters. He does it again today in talking about Kristin Prevallet and Jules Boykoff. I dunno, maybe there's something critically healthy about it, and I do admire his blog most of the time, but it just seems ... kind of anxious. »

I admire Silliman’s blog a lot too. If in Mexico we had a Silliman I would buy him Corona beer every Friday. That’s how much I love his work (especially The New Sentence collection).

But I too feel his response to the Creep possibility/difference/breaking a part from LangPo, is somewhat anxious, yes.

They need to let go of their authority, leadership or whatever we may called the role LangPoe has in the U.S. and even abroad.

I mean even in Mexico we know the LangPoets have this role, so this is the time to let go of it and create new differences—unless they want to become this canon or tradition which keeps not recognizing other younger writers are searching ways to not become this big ice block.

I mean, at one point or another LangPoets are going to be challenged in a serious way by the younger experimental writers. They cannot be their disciples forever or writers who-just-don’t-succeed to have another proposal to understanding the poetic community, their new relation to culture, the role of writing, new means. (Please, the Internet is now here). That’s enough sign something is happening.

Ice age coming
Ice age coming
Let me hear both sides
Let me hear both sides
Let me hear both

I’ve been hearing both sides and I tend to agree with the second one. Those who think there has already been a separation.

LangPoets are one of my favorite reading, I think I have said that many times here, but I also see a tendency there to deny the possibility of something beyond them.

We don’t need to play the Oedipal game any more, but not playing it means also no fathers there denying

The first of the children
The first of the children
The first of the children

Or the first of their not-children, the first of their not-daughters and not-sons.

I am remembering now the OEI 2001 number on the After LangPoets, which to me read as a series of younger writers having mixed feelings about abandoning or declaring a radical rupture with the older experimental writers.

That’s a whole different issue too.

But it’s very clear that the possibility of finding a series of differences is becoming more and more evident, and that the work of people like Darren Wershler-Henry, Rodrigo Toscano, Rod Smith, Jen Hofer, Edwin Torres, Lytle Shaw, Brian Kim Stefans, Bill Marsh, to name some of the writers whose work I’m somewhat familiar with, do have some new proposals not only in form but most importantly in how writing and writers relate to each other, their elders, other cultures, and the role of “poetry” in this new society.

At some point there’s going to be a clear rupture with LangPoe, and I mean a clear rupture coming from the experimental scenes—and maybe that’s already has happened and I just don’t not about.

I need money to buy this whole bunch of chapbooks and books.

Take the money run
Take the money run
Take the money

Or please send them to my P.O. Box!

But it is also curious to me, how this rupture is not so evident even by the part of other Creeps or whatever they want to be called or not be called.

But I can be totally wrong. But to me it looks like some of them are being too friendly with their teachers.

Who's in a bunker?
Who's in a bunker?
I have seen too much
I haven't seen enough
You haven't seen enough

This is why I like BKS approach. And precisely why I like Silliman’s response. There’s a tension there.

As an outsider I feel the breaking of the new writers should come from a mixture of this situations:

—Finishing “poetry” as this line-based structure. Finishing the prose-line distinction that international poetry still respects. Going beyond all genres. Ending poetry as the history of Line, and keeping it separate from novel, short-story, essay, aphorism, you name it. Poets are people who convinced themselves they must primordially must write “poetry”.

—Going beyond “voice”.

—Making the History of Literature not so relevant in the future development of writing. Literature is not the source.

—Reconstructing the Poetic Subject after the critique of the Lyrical I by LangPoe, Antipoetry (in LatinAmerica for example). Inventing new ways to explore the self, the I, @uto-bio=graphy, etc.

—Getting the American experimental poet out of the Academia and into more aggressively political time-spaces. LangPoe helped us to become totally aware how political the text was, but that’s not enough. Bush is outside. And we need to address how writing is going to become a more direct political activist force; and how the writer can even go beyond writing in order to stop the bad aspects of globalization.

—Diminishing the role of the book in the power exchange circuit of every national literature.

—Getting writings in the post-American Writing era, because to this point American writers descend from other American writers. This even can include a post-English situation.

—Defining what is the meaning of being an “American” in the world.

What’s really clear is that LangPoe is not the last “avant-garde” meaning the ultimate realization of poetics in our era.

There must be a separation (even a violent one) at some point. An that feels as something going to happen soon.

But if that separation is text-based, that would be a failure. If the differences are “found” or provoked only in the structure of the text (the way the use humor, style, etc) and not in the way writing relates to society in a totally new ways, that would be a failure.

Not Make It New—“It” being the text—But Make Them New. The Writers. Changing what a “writer” means.

Throw him in the fire
Throw him in the fire

Not how our new culture influences our new writing skills, but how a new writing can influence (in a new way) these new glocal cultures.

Older or younger we all are affected by culture, so the separation cannot happen there. The difference must come from the way we decide how to affect that same culture, the different strategies, the different concepts and praxis on how the writers need to act in the world and not only in readings, universities or on the page.

And by the part of the LangPoe and other older writers changing how they resist the difference that is arising, and how to abandon this father role they’re still employing, how an older writers sees itself as the judge of when something “new” is really happening or not.

BTW, LangPoets need to be post-LangPoets too.

And the younger ones, recognize they are all post-LangPoe even if they don’t want to, so better do it more radically.

Icebergs can happen.

And now I need to return to Spanish.


I hate being a writer. Feeling this desire to have "my" own work. The moment writers turn into translators (solely into translators) I am going to believe in their desire to destroy the "I" they talk so much against.

But not even the "I" is the real issue here. The "I" is just the means to have another thing...

Hate this drive to have a "My".


—The Avant Garde was nothing but this bunch of people who liked to get disconnected from History. “Let’s imagine ourselves as machines” and they called themselves The Futurists. “Lets jump around, wear Indian masks and… and! And let’s be totally freaky and crazy and… and… and…” and they called themselves the Dadaists. “Let’s forget European Christian-Rationalist Values” and they called themselves the Surrealists. Every Avant Garde decided an extravaganza —the first student says. He didn’t read the whole Habermas essay that was assigned, so that’s the reason why he starts so aggressively.

—The Avant Garde was the moment when the Modern Man learned how to go beyond History. The moment we learned how to leave History behind and have new worlds inhabited by intelligent visionary minorities —the girl in the first row says.

—And then we all learned how to do that —her boyfriend adds.

—But that’s stupid. History is not a car you can get out of to wander outside of it —her ex boyfriend replies.

—The Avant Garde is to blame. That’s the moment intellectuals discovered how to be outside of society. To disengage from reality supposedly to find alternatives, but they only turned out to be the forerunners of hiperreality —the Baudrillard fan blasts.

—And now everybody lives outside of Society and History —we all think.

—And when somebody wants to return to Society and History (The Big Return) the rest laughs —who said that?

—So, even now the Avant Garderns keep doing that. “Let’s be post-post-post-everything” and they call themselves Post-Post-Post-Whateva.

—So what’s the role of the intellectual now? —the professor finally asks.

—To get everybody back in the “car” and to let people know and make intellectuals understand to wander outside of History is Fun but nothing else. Outside of History there’s nothing except this bunch of High I.Q. people imagining stuff. Walking and having Cool Dreams. Are they on Peyote or What?

—No, they get high reading books.

And the last class of this night ends.

And most likely nobody wants to take the bus. It’s too late and the bus arrives to the University stop in one hour, so we are all asking for a ride.

Every Avant Garde. A ride. A ride with the Cool people, those who take their own way to wander around. Those who have their own car.

History. The Public Transportation intellectuals despise.

That old Bus Americans sold to the city of Tijuana and now is being used to take workers from their homes to the maquiladora plant.

Welcome back.



We need to sign this emergency petition to the U.N. Security Council: http://www.moveon.org/emergency/

I don't like petitions, but this is not a time to have literary taste or genre preferences hehe. Any effort is good to let the U:S. goverment know this war would be nothing but a crime.