Comments on: Richard Abrams denied tenure for supporting Flarf poetry

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:33:26 +0000

The question is who would I want teaching poetry to my kids. And I want someone who would understand that poetry is about the music of language. Flarf is nothing but mechanised dada. It is an idea that is a hundred years old, dressed up in modern technology as presented as new. Sure let them teach Flarf, but teach it for what it is, a silly internet phenomenon that does nothing whatsoever to advance the cause of poetry, language or understanding. It’s just an internet beatup. Besides nobody reads it. Everybody talks about it and nobody reads it.

By: iheartralphnad

iheartralphnad — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:55:32 +0000

For whatever reason, the idea of flarf is out there. Who are you to say what knowledge kids are exposed to in the classroom environment?

By: Paul Squires

Paul Squires — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:32:38 +0000

Good on the Board I say. Flarf is the most obvious dead end poetry has ever stuck it’s head into. If I was running that University and wanted someone to teach young people about poetry I would hire someone who hated flarf. It’s more the death of any real substance or life in poetry, an absolute internet beatup. If Ron Silliman hadn’t been one of the first poetry bloggers and gained fame that way flarf wouldn’t exist outside the spirax notebooks of a few middleclass semi educated pseudo-left wankers. They claim to have left wing politics but they write poetry that only other educated middleclass wankers can understand. This is the opinion of a reader, not a writer.