Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Flarf

I'm not a poet. Not even close. It's funny then, that I've chosen to leave the reservation of prose and attempt some flarf, of all things. If you've followed my writing, you will know that by now I've been experimenting more and more with my writing and finding limitations in my skill level as well as the form I had come to love. 

One of the biggest issues I had was with the conciseness and getting more than a single narrative out there at once.  To facilitate this I veered to writing shorter essays, then essays about books or films that didn't exist—taking a page from Borge's book. But even this method can leave out some of the needed narratives of the zeitgeist.

Around this time, I started to write stories about people using methods of story-telling that were beyond my capabilities. If you've been reading my writing, you will have noticed a few of those stories: Algo writing in a fractal manner, coders creating poetry via code only, or painters using edge node methods to tell stories about the world—or a section of it. 

Of course, sometimes my fiction would then follow reality, but it was with flarf that I decided to branch out even further and see what I could do.

Of course, I wasn't here to make something poetic, rather I thought that these curations, from these search words, would indicate something about the zeitgeist, about a subject about which I was writing. 

My second one was similar but drew from Wikileaks and was mainly about war, some thoughts on it, then ala 2666, a drip drip of all bodies found (IOW: Search: bodies). Well, not all, nut a few of them. 

I suppose I'm not sure what sort of reaction I was expecting, but it wasn't the claims of plagiarism or lack of creativity that were levied at me. 

Now, I'll admit that this new style requires more work to be complete, but I'm a little surprised at how the reaction was, well, so reactionary.

Am I missing something about how this works? I do want to work on juxtaposing a drip about some subject with my prose, to say nothing of increasing the disparity between the two subjects, or to do so with videos or pictures. But before I go further , why isn't this considered legitimate? I've written before about how comments online can represent the ultimate kind of dialogue—and why there are many reasons the novel is losing out to text on the internet. 

Why then, wouldn't this be completely valid? Why the reactions that this is just typing from the internet? I do hope that this new style works, but I want to see what you have to say first. 

Enjoyed it? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there & help cover the costs of running this thing. You can use paypal or a credit card.
Donate Bitcoins

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please comment to add to the discussion. Be kind. But let the democratic ideal lead you. And no spamming!