Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Extra: The Girl Monster Afterward

Hello fellow students. As I was coming home from school I thought of something that I didn’t think of during class. And because AR is so important to me, and because this is still technically my blog post, I will publish my thoughts.


They specifically pertain to Joyelle’s chart that Zurita is to Pinochet what AR is to…. Now Carina posited that what Pinochet becomes is the meat/social industry in AR’s sphere. While I do concur that AR is trapped in a system, I don’t think that system is the meat/human structure. Rather, I think AR is trapped in her own system. So Zurita is to Pinochet what Reines is to Reines. She is both the victim and the aggressor. The torturer and the tortured. She’s annexing lands: cock, people’s homes, and seamen. In Couer de Lion she writes, “But my smile was real when I swallowed your come.” There is a reason for her joy. It’s because she knows that that cum is hers. It’s a part of her empire. She’s expanding. But she’s also Pinochet. She’s the destructive dictator pillaging her own land. If the house is hers, then why is she making a mess of it? Shouldn’t she keep the pillows clean, the medicine cabinets tidy? No! When everything (and I mean everything) comes under your jurisdiction, when infinity becomes your limit, you need to ensure that you don’t become content, that you don’t cease exploring. This is why you need destruction. You need to take things a part, not because they need to be taken a part, but because, already supplied with infinity, you need some kind of action.


Schopenhauer says that the genius is always on the look out for new ideas, new modes of thought, in order to make his brain that much bigger. So AR is always searching for lands to march into, new territories to explore, in order to trick infinity. She shoves a glue gun up her thingy for the sole purpose of being able to momentarily estrange herself from her vagina, just so she can reacquaint herself without it; that is, being it under her empire again. This is the snare, or the fine print, that Carina talked about. But the restriction is NOT from an external source. No, she is pure. By pure, I mean no other element can get inside her. The cocks, the glue guns, the spit, the mart, the dog, are all misleading. These are not foreign things, but they belong to Reines. We know that she possess them, because they’re in her poems. They’re under her authority.


Zurita, contrariwise, I don’t think is pure. Yes, by writing about what happened to him, he is removing some of Pinochet’s authority. He’s saying that he has power as well – that he can employ his own rhetorical and forms. That he can recreate the experience without Pinochet’s consent. But the disobedience represents a difference between Zurita and Pinochet. Pinochet would not tolerate Zurita singing about disappeared loves and encouraging countries to revolt. He’d want those disappeared loves to stay that way – gone, vanished, no document (like a poetry book) to serve as evidence for what he’s done. So Zurita doesn’t have access to infinity. He’s not Pinochet. At the reading he said he wished he never had to write this collection of poems, which means something else – besides himself -- was acting on him. With Reines, nothing else can act on her, because her machine is everywhere. When she writes “my whole is just another whole in the world” in Coeur de Lion, she is disencumbering her “hole” – the apparatus that sucks in and can handle anything – from the restraints of an individual agent. She’s not one thing with one specific set of beliefs, values, &c, but an endless thing with unlimited possibilities.

4 comments:

  1. I think one of my main issues with this is the idea that one or the other is "pure." It reminds me a lot of the irritating discussion of the "Natural" in a lot of the Diderot we've been reading. I don't think "pure" and "Natural" are the aim here -- if we're looking at the performance of this text (which I think, Seth, is where our opinions diverge), it's the necessary rendering of the experience, "real" or "imagined" or "perceived" or what have you, that produces this performance which is ultimately Artificial because it is an attempt to mime or replicate the Natural.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Uh-huh, our thoughts don't agree. You evoke "natural" as if there is such a thing that is immune to artifice -- to manmade, mass-produced, intentionality. Do you think there is some element that springs -- without any help or assistance from a plastic agent -- from pure earth, from grass? I'm not sure. Do you think humans are natural? They can't be, when so much of what we know about humans and how they should be treated comes from unnatural sources. They derive from documents -- written, deliberate texts. The Declaration of the Rights of Man, the United States Constitution, are books, not brooks. They were created by third estate men and colony commissioners. They didn't have to exist. There's nothing inherent about them. You can easily alter
    them (i.e. slavery). But if you wanted to transform the sun (natural?) blue, then that would be rather difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. how are you defining plastic agents and Natural? because I'm pretty sure there are many things that do, in fact, spring up from the earth without human intervention -- Nature, for example; mountains and grasses and flowers and such.

    2. implying that there is any one way humans "should" be treated forces a power-structure on the situation that only exists as a result of such implications.

    3. I don't think that the Natural is immune to artifice -- I'm pretty sure, in fact, that it's the variety of thing most susceptible to imitation. if Art wants to hold a Mirror up to Nature, it wants to make a reflection, an imitation.

    4. Girl Libertines

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kate Zamberno taught me in Intro to Lit at Columbia College Chicago. She said I was very talent and had lots of potential, which is true.

    I think that in sex it's the girl who annihilates boy. It's the boy who becomes surrounded, outflanked, covered in the girl. This is why the most
    imperialistic boy writers stuck mostly to boys: Rimbaud, Genet, and O'Hara (who rewrites NYC). They understand it's the incorporator (Nazi Germany) not the incorporated (Poland) that issues orders.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.