Comments on: Flarf, Bleh

By: graywyvern

graywyvern — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:23:52 +0000

in html,

& # 2 4 6 ;

or if you’re lazy you can just cut & paste the name from a wikipedia article you know will contain the letter

By: Ms Baroque

Ms Baroque — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:20:34 +0000

Great post. I too was fascinated by the piece, not least because I’ve unwittingly written at least one poem that might count as flarf. But “flarf,” as Don share has pointed out elsewhere in relation to Rotterdam International, is not a term you really hear much of outside the USA – and the aggressive compartmentalising of “poetries” isn’t as aggressive elsewhere either, I don’t think. Except in their hard cores.

Having said all of which, I came down a bit more disgruntled than you, and was aware that I hadn’t really considered the issue properly, partly because I was multi-tasking in a way that wasn’t really fair to the flarf and partly because of my annoyance with the polarisation.

But you’re right – what Poetry is doing is great, and if it weren’t for their tireless efforts and openness we wouldn’t even be having this debate! Well done for encapsulating it so well. I too rather liked some of the flarf poems, but I haven’t yet read the rest of the issue, so can’t compare.

On a Mac, to make an umlaut you press alt + u, and then the letter you want the umlaut to be over.

By: Jared

Jared — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:39:39 +0000

Well, when the poets themselves boldly admit it’s “bad poetry” written by “good poets”, that’s telling. If someone tells me to not take their work seriously, I won’t.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:29:14 +0000

It’s collage of a kind. Interesting very briefly, then just boring. So far, anyway.

By: Jared

Jared — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:33:28 +0000

I read the article in question tonight at Borders, and was amused by how the author took a stance the ephasized and re-emphasized the idea that These Are Real Poets With Real Training, Even Though It Doesn’t Look Like It! Really!