........................................................................
Chen is a master of the fine art of THE BRILLIANCE OF GIBBERISH, as featured in the above cartoon sketched in 2018. In the latest P$W mag, Chen is again featured. I've cartooned so many career poets like him/her over the past few decades that I'd forgotten I'd already cartooned him. Thus, I did a search and bingo, there (here) he/she was. Since there are so many, many INANE/INNOCUOUS POETASTERS featured in P&W, I try not to sketch the same one twice. Chen tempted me, but I resisted. For Chen's endless identity politics hate-whitey tirade, see https://www.pw.org/content/craft_capsule_against_universality_in_praise_of_anger. #29 is a good example: "I’d like white writers to get angrier. Why did so few of my white grad school classmates speak out? Some of my Asian American peers could get angrier too. About racism. About who still gets left out of Asian American spaces. About anti-Blackness in Asian America."
Now, why doesn't Chen Chen express a little anger at all the hands feeding his/her dainty fingers, including P$W, Academy of American Poets, and Brandeis University? He/she is poet-in-residence at the latter. So, why doesn't he/she do that? The answer is simple: Chen Chen is a flaming hypocrite in pants or skirt!
22 comments:
Why the fuck would you send this to his work colleagues? Why would you send it to him?
People who use pseudonyms are cowardly. I am a fervent believer in satire, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and vigorous debate. That is why I sent it! Sadly, you likely cannot understand that, which is a clear indication of the extent of your indoctrination.
You think everyone is out to get you, and so you attack a man who did nothing to you. What kind of normal person keeps getting banned from entering libraries?
Chen Chen writes so many beautiful poems, and also has a great fashion & aesthetic sensibility. *His* words deserve to be remembered, and they will be.
Christine D.
Greenfield, MA
Who are you, Christine, Chen Chen's mother? Rather than attacking me, examine my message: the Absolute Inanity of Poets and Their Poetry! How the hell is that character going to change the freakin' world? By spouting stupidity in the pages of Poets & Writers? Hmm. So, you're going to remember the words he spouted in that cartoon? Wow.
Regarding banning, it occurred at two libraries. TWO does not equal "keeps getting banned"! Of course, I am NOT a normal person! Why not? Well, I put free speech above ladder climbing and pleasing authoritarian library directors, who post hypocritical collection development statements, as in "libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view." Evidently, my point of view was permanently banned. Isn't that called flaming hypocrisy? Reason is always the enemy of blind worshippers! Anyhow, thanks for commenting!
So no, not the words in the cartoon, but his actual poems. As for the way he talks about writing, people like Raymond Carver or Haruki Murakami or even Stravinsky with music talk about it like that too. I think it’s fine; we look at the result. Which I admire in different ways for all 3 writers, plus some of Stravinsky.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/143239/in-the-hospital-5944115fa6ca7
https://poets.org/poem/kafkas-axe-michaels-vest
Well, it’s perhaps true that they shouldn’t have tried to ‘present all points of view’ in a finite venue. But I am struck by the recursive content of your speech, it all seems to be about... the trammeling of your personal speech. What would you say or show about the world that’s additional to that? Frankly if it’s just deliberate provocation and roughly drawn cartoons someone wants, they could also subscribe to Charlie Hebdo. There’s a need and desire for a whole world of other kinds of content out there besides the crudely satirical, which has a place... but is certainly not the entire world.
As for them banning you, unfortunately because of certain overlap in manner with another type of person found in libraries, they have perhaps perceived you as ‘mentally unstable in a way they find physically threatening’.
Hi Christine,
Thank you for engaging in a little debate. That in itself is quite rare! Not even your Chen Chen will dare do that. "Crude" is clearly a highly subjective term. In essence, it is nothing more than ad hominem kill the messenger in an effort to avoid his message! Do you really find Chen Chen's writer's block solution (see the cartoon) as ingenious and worthy of a poet who is going to change the world? Wow. Rather CRUDE than CHEN-CHEN INANITY!
“Recursive” perhaps. BUT those without personal experience testing the waters of democracy and consequently risking job, invitations, publications, limelight, etc., tend to belittle those who do possess such experience and indeed write about such experience! Clearly and contrary to your assertion, I have generalized from my personal experiences with intellectual corruption and cowardice. Anything that criticizes your friends will be perceived by you as "deliberate provocation.” Yet, clearly, there is a general message in that CHEN CHEN cartoon: establishment poets often blather inanity… and it is that inanity that I seek to highlight! If poets like Chen receive only kudos, they will simply get worse and worse and worse.
Vive Charlie Hebdo! Especially regarding its criticism of Islam and Islam's hatred for freedom of speech! For you and likely most poets, your reality is JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE!
That "whole world of other content" tends to be the only content in Poets & Writers and other such establishment magazines, which dare not open their doors to real criticism.
And how sad that you, Christine, don't give a damn about freedom of expression and those who will punish rare poets who dare exercise that right! At least others do care (see http://sturgisbansdissident.blogspot.com)! And how nauseatingly grotesque that you would agree with the “mentally unstable in a way they find physically threatening” reason to KILL freedom of expression! If a director is so threatened by simple words of criticism (no threats at all!), she should NOT be a director!
Democracy demands a citizenry with BACKBONE! Democracy canNOT exist with a population of spineless citizens like Chen, you, and the authoritarian library director, Lucy Loomis! I was permanently banned 8 years ago… and yet Loomis has NEVER, NEVER received a threat from me! How can you NOT perceive the stealth hypocrisy behind the “physically threatening” ploy? Are you perhaps NOT even aware that such an accusation does NOT cancel the First Amendment? Alas, America continues in the downward spiral of spineless citizenry.
Au plaisir…
Hi George,
I will try to answer each point in order.
- You are missing my idea with the ‘writer’s block tips’. Artists and writers are (in my opinion) ideally judged by their finished work. The rest is good to build a further personal rapport/understanding/viewing lens, but the art & its qualities are the main thing.
- When I say ‘crude’ it is an aesthetic judgement. Although aesthetics are also one component of my personal morality. I do not at all disregard Charlie Hebdo or the Sex Pistols, I know they are/were important to exist, but aspects of their style are aesthetically ugly and so I don’t need it in my face all the time.
- I am not at all a poet by profession or education, but it’s nice you think so! I also have not personally met Chen Chen.
- I do care about freedom of expression, but you might realize that the community itself (which I am not too big on, btw) can fully democratically cast a person out. It happened (in a far-too-lofty example) with Socrates. So, sometimes that could also be about that person exposing the group’s corruption etc. but sometimes it is just extremely personal. I cannot know about the exact reasons of the library, but your approach has the appearance of obsession and mania and I think that will genuinely scare some people and be used as an excuse by others to not listen. You also probably ask too much when you want to be invited into small spaces to then personally criticize those who let you in. When it is small it is much more insulting, so I understand your principle in doing so, but I think no human community will accept this.
Also, I forgot to end by saying with Flaubert that in art, style is the subject. Because the subjects are perennial; it is only the perspective and style that can perhaps resonate within us and create a new connection.
Hi Christine,
Again, I must compliment you for your willingness to debate. My long experience criticizing academics is that 99% reject debate and cannot bear to be criticized. As for writers and artists, they are largely protected in their safe-space cocoons from outside criticism.
But who are the faceless judges? Andhow not to cite Juvenal: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Well, I'm one of the few who watch (criticize) the watchmen judges! Writing and art is all highly subjective, not objective!
Well, in all evidence, I have been ostracized from the "community" for daring to criticize the "community" and its faceless judges and icons.
Well, you do come up with some interesting criticism, including: "your approach has the appearance of obsession and mania." Can there actually be an approach that doesn't appear to be thus on the part of establishment personages? Methinks no.
My interest is not acceptance by some community. My interest is in speaking truth. Again, I wish you would examine Chen's words in that cartoon and tell me why a big mag like Poets & Writers would feature them... and how doing that might improve poetry.
As for your Flaubert statement, I have long criticized the establishment mantra: l'art pour l'art. And sadly that mantra has succeeded in dominating and excluding critical art and writing... and ended up coopting, castrating, and corralling poets and artists.
Why are you anonymous? What is your fear ? Career? Generally, the fear is always career. And as mentioned career and truth do not jive...
Thanks for the response and your swerving a bit away from the racist, racist, racist vacuous accusations.
Hi George,
I think the approach that would be meaningful is to explore the art itself. Which is indeed subjective. This publication ’Poets and Writers’ is something you evidently read; if they want to interview artists about their personal lives, what possible ’stance’ is there to have on that? That’s why your cartoon is taken as an ad hominem attack, when really it was an attack on... idk. An artist talking about his personal writing process & life. The gratuitous skirt did not help, b/c it indicates your (of a previous era?) misunderstanding/contempt of what it is to be gay. My brother is also gay, so this was like a misrepresentation of him as well. And at a quick glance, the artistic style appears to also give additional insult although I realize that is not intentional.
The academy is whatever/wherever it is (I only hear things indirectly); in general I only respect the opinion on poets that is about their poetry from those that (I feel) understand a wide array of poets, etc. (substitute any kind of art above for poetry, it will also apply). As I said before, it seems in this instance like your truth is recursive; you attack perhaps ‘the academy’ but visually it seems to be the artist, from a mysterious non-artistic vantage point, and then wish everyone to acknowledge it. Regarding the literary scene, Chen Chen has written somewhere about having struggled for his independence of thought from those who are the establishment. In any era, artists have struggled to establish themselves independently of their patrons. The talented ones eventually do, but whether they came through that system or not doesn’t make the classical composers or Renaissance painters less impressive.
Now: I don’t divulge my full name, appearance, address etc. online. The fear (or, more concretely, distaste) is truly about various unknown unstable people/ people physically seeking political enemies. My profession is electrical engineering, although I am trying now to learn more about sustainable farming.
Have a good Thanksgiving.
Hi Christine,
My criticism is really not at all against whatever the hell poetry Chen writes. It is really against his inane statement and against Poets & Writers for publishing it. How can you not understand that from the cartoon? Well, I suppose you could then say that any criticism lodged against any person is an ad hominem attack. Hmm. But that's not true. The key to ad hominem is that it serves to completely avoid the points made by the person attacked by ad hominem (kill the messenger/avoid the message). Why is it "contempt" for a man to wear a skirt? Hell, warriors did that in Scotland. Are there not any transvestites any more? The cartoon simply highlights the utter absurdity of Chen and his statement. My neighbor is gay. We have no problems with that at all. We often sit outside behind his house and talk and drink tea. Now, if I hated gays so much, as you seem insinuate, why the hell would I do that? It makes no sense to bellow racist any time a black person is criticized and homophobe any time a gay person is criticized, which is precisely your identity-politics m.o. It is certainly not an m.o. of reason and fact. In your art world, the absence of criticism is essentially requisite. I break that taboo. That's what I do. Chen obey's it. That's what he does. You failed to address the utter absurdity of a character like Chen to be anointed as one of the "!0 Poets Who Will Change the World." Why have you avoided that? And is it not sad that a poet like Chen dares not engage in debate like you and I have done? Debate with opposites has provided me with a tremendous amount of grist over the years from which I have created 100s of poems, 100s of essays, 100s of cartoons, as well as plays and non-fiction novels. In fact, I am left wondering why you have continued to respond. It is a sad world when perhaps most citizens are afraid to speak out and not hide behind anonymity. That is something that I chose long ago not to do. I really do not believe that one can truly speak truth when hiding behind anonymity. Anyhow, I have a problem with my lamp connection. Can you help me? Just joking'!
T
Potentially I could help with the lamp (always striving to illuminate!), but not in person so it might be more difficult 😄. Is it the outlet or lamp wire? If it’s the lamp, the internal wire can be replaced (available at the hardware store). Outlet wire for the wall is available too, but of course you must be careful with that (do you have a multimeter?) I just redid an outlet here. I know you are aware this is not electrical engineering per se, even so.
To try to summarize briefly once again about the cartoon, the style is what makes it seem like an ad hominem attack. Chen’s poetry is good, I daresay it can change the world as much as any other good poem is capable of doing so (intangibly inside people’s perspectives). It’s the poems that would do it or not, that’s why I focus on the work (I like the person himself too, from what I know, of course).
Now, it’s hard for me to believe it’s not meant as an insult by you to inexplicably put him in a skirt. You were surely not trying to evoke kilts or something. That kind of thing *is* an ad hominem attack (even if goofy/ inaccurate). I didn’t say you have virulent hatred, but this aspect of caricature doesn’t even make sense unless you have some level of hang-up about gay people (you also called him a she?) Unless you just wanted to use old tropes about women to say a man (not related to being gay) is weak?? Which, well, you cannot expect me to think is insightful or accurate.
Art does not have to be an unaesthetic manifesto like Rush lyrics to have an effect on a person’s views (in fact, being preachy like that will destroy the effect in my opinion). Art is by its nature less direct (and more powerful) than a ‘plain description’. Because it allows one to glimpse truths in ways more resonant than ‘plain speech’. It probably has to do with the brain itself and what patterns resonate & are remembered deeply. Have you ever had a poem or other art affect you in this way at all? As being far more meaningful than ‘the literal description’? You quote people like Thoreau & Hemingway, but in your art, have you ever tried to do what they do?
As for why *I* continue to respond, I must like clarifying my own views further to myself, or wasting both of our time; I cannot really expect you to agree with/ act upon my points when you have likely built an entire life on the belief that truth is more or less synonymous with those German parade floats at Carnival (n.b. the quality of design of those is probably a gold standard of caricature). If you yourself had a friend who only drew unflattering cartoons of you, wouldn’t you get tired of it?
Christine
On writers: You quoted James Baldwin somewhere on your site with all the writers who are talking about the importance of dissent. Well? Those were good writers & artists; certainly Baldwin was unceasingly (and justly) critical of the US, but with an incomparable style. He was able to bring clarity to the situation, to expose ugly injustice while being extremely elegant. If he wasn’t artistic, he could still be a journalist, etc. but he was able to do it all.
One last thing: Thoreau did not hesitate to criticize the moral hypocrisy of his Concord neighbors (and in fact underestimated their capacity to listen to him, which they actually did). But I cannot picture him or Emerson or whoever choosing to insult their neighbors through caricature. It is usually reserved for the truly powerful because otherwise it has more of a flavor of bullying. And then people cannot support its distribution without seeming to bully their neighbors or friends who have been personally depicted. So the smaller the community we are talking about, I think it is less & less about people having thin skin for themselves. You may say you don’t care about ‘herd mentality’, but any sort of friendship or solidarity or personal care will also be put on the defensive by this style of critique.
Well, I was joking RE the lamp. As mentioned, the Harvard poet critic wears skirts. Well, who knows what to call a Chen anymore RE pronouns? I'd have to get conditioned in a gender studies course to learn the proper pc-pronouns. And if you really cannot see how ridiculous the 10 poets who will change the world is, then we live in different universes. Same goes for the absurd statement Chen made. And so now you are dictating what art should and should not be. I like clarity and directness, not obscurity... and certainly not l'art pour l'art, which serves the establishment in its innocuousness and obscurity! I do not copy other people and try to do what they do. I do not have heroes. Thoreau is not my hero. But I lived in Concord for 10 years, so got to know him somewhat and certainly got to experience how the establishment has been using him and ignoring certain things he wrote, including "let your life be a counterfrictiol to stop the machine." That is essentially what I've been doing, but not because he said do that. Chen is part of the machine, which I despise. And I suspect you too are part of it. If I had not drawn Chen wearing a dress and referred to him as she, I really doubt that would have opened your eyes to the stupidity of the 10 poets and his statement. In essence, by evoking those two minor items, you completely deflect from the message.
For me, I don't find debate even with a total opposite to be waste of time. I have been writing back and forth with a far-left prog for about 6 months now and have published her in The American Dissident. I challenged her to write something critical about me. She did. And I published it. What other poetry journal would do that? Not one.
Well, I suppose this is an interesting question: " If you yourself had a friend who only drew unflattering cartoons of you, wouldn’t you get tired of it?" I would not get tired of it, if the criticism in the cartoons was founded on fact, truth, and reason.
BTW, I'd like to "see" what you think of the 100s of other cartoons I've posted on the blog, including a recent BLM cartoon.
Well, I'm not really into Baldwin at all. He seems to have become a symbol of BLM. Some guy in the vicinity drew a huge portrait of Baldwin on the side of his garage. BLM is communist-oriented. BLM is racist. BLM is violent. BLM has provoked rioting and looting. Your description of Baldwin (hagiography of him) is of course highly subjective.
To sketch caricatures of the "truly powerful" takes zero risk. I much prefer doing caricatures on people who rarely if ever are criticized... like Chen. Well, I did do one on Obama/Hillary once. But that's one out of 2,000 or so. And again, it was done because of Obama's anti-free speech statement, a rather stupid statement for an American president: "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." On the contrary, the future MUST belong to those who slander Muhammad... otherwise democracy is dead and replaced by Sharia. And I'd be highly surprised if you agreed with me on that point.
Emerson and Thoreau did not draw caricatures. Both tended to speak generalities. Generalities tend to be rather inoffensive and easily ignored by those who ought to heed them. That is why I rarely sketch generalities now. Also, I am a firm believer in naming names (e.g., Chen) because that helps to increase accountability.
"Bullying" is a recent pc-ploy to avoid the message. Grown adults should not be whining against being bullied all the time. If they can't take the heat like Chen and you, who remain anonymous, then get the hell out of the limelight! Nice chatting with you!
PS: The same pc-ploy of avoiding the message, includes the bellowing of racist, racist, homophobe, islamophobe, sexist, xenophobe, and on and on. The problem with left-wing garbage like identity politics is that it promotes stereotypes and inevitably runs counter to reason, logic, and facts.
PPS: As I recall, contrary to your assertion, Thoreau actually did criticize some of his neighbors in his journals and perhaps even in Walden. On another note, I suspect your bosses, career ladder-climbers, likely are not fully honest. Career and truth do not make good bed fellows! And you choose to remain silent (anonymous) with that regard and, in that sense, help facilitate their likely deceit, lies, or whatever. So, you somehow feel a need to diss me for not behaving like you and not obeying the general careerist mantra: silence is golden. Think about that, if you can...
I said he did criticize them, look back at it. He did not publish insulting or nude caricatures of them, is what he did not do. To my knowledge!😆 And guess again about my work, I want to change career path, but banality is different than lies. I have not always liked my direct bosses, but none were liars (I believe). They are sometimes working in an inefficient and bloated system that they too complain about! Business fiefdoms etc. Bureaucracy is all out in the open, depressingly. ‘Think about it if I can’, lol 😆 don’t worry, I have always deliberately told my bosses exactly what I think because I feel I need to counteract any possible reticence caused by the hierarchy. I have zero ambitions toward any ‘ladder’ anyway. But I will rather just move on to something different than try to force investment in more interesting/useful work by turning back the clock and making businesses take the long view again (rather than that of ‘blind growth’ or short term shareholder profit). Most companies in general do what business culture & the law allow, both need to change.
Hm, I tried twice to answer this and it got lost both times...
Post a Comment