Possum Pouch

This is an interesting comment, Kent, and Dale. I'm glad to see some strident consideration of this issue in bloggie land. Tim Peterson's work was outstanding on that issue, as was the poetry--thankfully I read it before it was "disappeared."

Keep on.

Best,
chris murray

I guess I shouldn't have joked about sitting in for Ron. I never meant that as a long project, just as a funny drop in the bucket. Real funny, I guess.

As per Tim and cwhobb?, I was deleting the city issues and putting them in a grab-all issue called 17.1. Charles Alexander's and Tim's were deleted. An added bonus to me was that I wouldn't support Tim's work any longer. Should I be forced to support the work of a poet that is hostile and crosses the line by saying I have no testicles? Beats me. What this has to do with Kent, I don't know. It was Tim's continued reference to that issue as if it were somehow stolen from him that got that message posted. It does sum up my feelings: the spirit of that magazine was that no one puts their name across the top in big letters and calls themself the editor. And I should have rejected any calls from anyone to do so. I wanted, at that time, to support Tim and his work and to experiment with the site. I no longer do.

All this other stuff with Kent seems very silly to me. I wish he didn't use me as a character in his AWP short story before ever talking to me or meeting me or anything.

--Jimmy

I've taken down all of the stuff that Kent mentions here. I'm sorry for my end of the blogwar in Ron Silliman's comment fields.

Viva Skanky!

luv
Jimmy

Jim, I dig. Someone says you got no testicles, boot 'em. But I don't think it was the joking in the classroom while Mr. Silliman was away that riled Kent. There's an accumulative history he's getting at. Mostly, it's none of my business. I like blogs that, like other kinds of writing, hit something at the core. I kick myself in the pants when going astray from some fundamental substance. Not that I'm patched into the angels or anything, but I wanna be. And yes, you see I've got a prejudice on behalf of Kent. I let him use the space here today. We'll see where it goes next. I got diapers to hang now.

Yours from the skank marshes of deep Texas,
DS

I do feel people should subscribe to Skanky Possum. I do know I can be a jerk. I am working on it. Pardon my appearance during construction.

luv
Jimmy

There's been some question about what's up with the crush list. I have written about it before at

http://jimmy.onepotmeal.com/archives/004290.html

The Crush List is *not* a Have Sex With Me List or a You're a Babe List. It is simply a way for me to understand who is pulling on my heart. Not my penis.

You see, I'm a poet. A romantic. I like it when I encounter people in the world I am attracted to. I like to flirt with these people. As they go up and down the list, it's a result of how much I am liking these people being in my world at that moment. Men and women have been on this list. I have had relationships with men and women and I have had sex with men and women. I would mostly like to have relationships and sex with women at this time. If you're interested, backchannel me.

So I think seeing the Crush List as some new heirarchy of women is a dull reading of it. If people would rather not be on it, they can get in touch. It's an interesting project to me to continue to update claims against *my* heart and to see what happens when you just spell it out that you like people. So I'll continue.

The list represents nothing else. I'm not sure how you would evaluate it without meeting all of the people who are on it. Which I would recommend. They're really nice people.

luv Jimmy

But I will say that I do like porn. Yes. I do.

I have chosen to respond to these things here because they are laid out reasonably and I have been given a chance to respond reasonably. I wish that we'd done it like this to begin with instead of pooping in Ron's yard. I do like him, but I also like my dad. I'm not sure why every interaction I have with an older poet must be oedipal. Some older poets are just really grumpy.

--Jimmy

Jim,

No offense, but you're a great big liar. "Issue redesign," indeed. You thrive in this medium because no one remembers what happened from minute to the next, so you can make up any old story you want to.

As for you not wanting to support my work, was that before or after that you decided to start all this by attacking me in public?

Tim

oops...darn auto-scroll-down lists...I meant to link to my blog in that last post, not to the Buffalo list. Apologies, everyone...

No, what happened is that I posted a message to the Buffalo List that had nothing to do with you, and you went into "paranoid freakout" mode and started attacking me.

luv, Tim

PS I find it really hilarious that you somehow insist that I "used you," considering that the whole Tucson issue of "can we have our ball back?" was your idea in the first place. If anything you used me, my friend. And you deleted that issue entirely out of spite -- don't you dare pretend otherwise.

Tim definitely approached me about the issue. I didn't even know he was from Arizona.

See ya.

Jimmy

I believe all this started when you sent this message to a bunch of us Boston poets. Not my idea, huh?

Tim

Quoting Jim Behrle :

> from: tinaiskingofmonsterisland@hotmail.com
>
> Please backchannel with proposals or suggestions for special issues of
> cwhobb? Looking for interesting poetic communities in under-hyped places
> (Tuscon, Phoenix, etc.) Minimum 10-15 poets per issue, guest-editors
> sought.
>
> Be well.
> Jim Behrle

You knew I was from Tucson, as evidenced by the fact that you have called me "Tucson Tim Peterson" several times on your blog as far back as a year and a half ago. So then what happened is, I asked if I was qualified to guest-edit such an issue, and you said, yeah I should do it. Thanks for the encouragement, Jim.

And just for the record, here's the cartoon where you publicly made reference to taking the issue down out of spite:

http://jimmy.onepotmeal.com/archives/2004_03.html

(it's the "maalsikuu 12, 2004" entry)

In the 3/3 e-mail I sent to the Buffalo List I asked for different places (Montana, Atlanta, Winnipeg, etc.). I don't remember if I did or didn't send another e-mail last year about Phoenix or Tucson. Tim did say, hey, I'll do that issue! And I did say sure. What this has to do with anything, I'm not sure.

The Red Sox score blogging and crush list obviously did have to do with me, as those are two things that I do that no one else in these circles does. It gave me the impression that you were mocking me. I then pointed out that you had 2 blogs, and which could just as easily be mocked.

Why did you tell the contributors to not be in touch with me?

Jim,
I was the one who was to put together a Montana issue of CWHOBB. Rememeber me? I was your guest-editor-- And I got all of the poems together for that issue. Just to let you know it took a lot of work too. You took it down because you were pissed off at me and Andrew. And I don't give a fuck if you did. But I do think that we should give credit where credit is due, okay?
Thanks,
Sandra Simonds

At the time that cartoon went up all the poems were still up, mixed between other city issues in an issue called 17.1. Your introduction and Charles Alexander's introduction were the only things that were missing. I would have kept it that way. I didn't like how you were making it seem like I'd stolen the issue from you. You seemed to think that you were the most important part of the equation. I thought the contributors were the point of the issue. It sounds like the issue is going up elsewhere. Good luck with it.

Yes, I do remember, Sandra. The Montana issue never did say that you and Andrew Mister were co-editors. As Noah Eli Gordon was never identified as the editor of the Western Mass issue. If this credit is important to you it's the first I've heard of it. I do not have access to the website right now, but when I do I will credit you and Andrew if you wish.

Well Jim,
I have to say this. I feel empathy for Tim. I put together the Montana issue of CWHOBB and then you DELETED my poems. It was totally unfair. And hen you publicly humiliated me. Then six months later you took down everything that you said about me and then sent me an email saying that you don't understand how you could be mad at someone "so cute" and asked me to be your friend. I think people should know that.
Sandra

Well, I felt like having that post I posted come up 3rd when anybody googled you or Andrew was too much punishment for what you two did. You had asked me to take down the post and I took it down. I was no longer angry about it and thought everybody should move on. Don't you agree?

Jim,

I agree. Moving on is a good idea. Movin' on up, y'heard?

Sandra

I didn't recommend that the contributors not be in touch with you, I just told them we're moving on, the issue is going up elsewhere, and that they shouldn't bug you or harrass you about the fact that their poems just got deleted. I didn't want you to think that I was trying to get everyone in the issue to attack you or something. How you make that act sound negative is really beyond my comprehension...I was trying to avoid more fighting.

At the time I wrote the email to the Buffalo List, I really didn't know that you'd somehow "trademarked" the idea of a Crush List. I honestly didn't realize you thought of that as your idea. At least 3 or 4 other poets in Boston have done crush lists, as well as people in other cities, so how am I supposed to know who invented it? Give me a break! As for the Red Sox, Jim, I'm afraid you don't have any particularly exclusive claim to them either. If you were upset about what I wrote, maybe we could have discussed it like two mature adults, but unfortunately you seem to have been blocking all my email addresses for several months now, starting from before the "Buffalo List" event occurred.

If some of the contributors still want to be in your magazine after all this, I would encourage them in this endeavor. However, the issue will still be going up elsewhere in its entirety.

This feels really good. Maybe Skanky can keep this board up and I can answer everyone's beefs with me on an ongoing basis.

Yes, people's poems were removed from my magazine. Yes, at the time it seemed like a very good idea, that continuing to support their work in the face of back and forth public abuse seemed intolerable. That if that effects your enjoyment of the magazine, well there it is. The editorial board of can we have our ball back? is just me, and if you don't like it and don't like me, oh well. can we have our ball back? is one of many magazines. Your work could be elsewhere, published by someone you've abused less and who has abused you less. Only 4 poets work has been deleted from the magazine because of blog-related activity. Out of hundreds.

I never promised to keep any poem or poet up eternally (do print magazines promise to keep people's work in print forever?) I could go back over why I removed this poet or that poet's stuff. But it seemed at the time like a really good idea.

Sandra did accept a bunch of poems of mine for a magazine she was doing. When is that coming out?

Sandra--

I agree. Fuck it. I'm sorry for my end of it. Wave to me this week in SF, CA.

--Jimmy

Jim, do me a favor. If this magazine is REALLY about the contributors, then next time you want a city feature issue DO YOU OWN WORK, or else make sure you get someone who's enough of a sucker to not care whether they are "used" in such a way and then erased from the record when they somehow displease you.

Tim, if you wanted the fighting to stop, why are we typing into these Skanky boxes? Why did Kent get involved in this? Why does he insist I apologize to you before he considers apologizing to me? Why do you comment to Ron's boxes to call me whatever you did this time.

Anyone who's interested in what you did or didn't say can go back into my archives, since you erased your performances on your site. You did say my cartoons suck, and those cartoon guys took it pretty hard.

Well, I don't really get it. The issue was up, now the issue is down. The Tucson issue had a good run, was featured for about a year and now will have a life someplace else. What's the beef?

Tim, I'll do what I wish with my magazine. People who haven't told me I had no testicles continue to have a good working relationship with me. I was asked not to harm you by some mutual friends of ours. "No testicles" talk has historically been fighting words. I may, at some point, show you them. Because you seem so interested.

I'll see you in SF--not waving
but drowning –-
until then
Later
Sandra

And, again, all of the contributors' work would have stayed up and would be up now. What was most important to you was you. And that remains true. I get no credit for the magazine and my name does not appear on any of the issues. I spent hours putting that issue up and all of the issue up. Your name was across the top of the issue for a year. You should have taken one for the Tucson team.

I'm not posting this to try and stir up more anger, but since people seem to have had trouble reading all of the post Kent refers to regarding this issue (my blog doesn't scroll well, apparently) (and I don't archive), I'll post it below (I hope that's okay, Dale). I should also state that I don't have a personal grudge against Jim Behrle; my only real interaction with him has been positive: he published a couple of my poems in CWHOBB before just about anyone else would publish anything of mine, and I'm still proud to be a part of that magazine. I also thought the regional issues was a great idea, and emailed him about the possibility of an Arkansas issue: I'm not sure if I got a response, but I took this as a sign of a busy person who likely gets many such proposals, and not as a personal slight. My post is in this spirit, I hope: poetry and publishing poetry is worth taking seriously, and peers should feel free to be critical of peers IF they're willing to do so in a humane manner. I think it's commendable that Jim is willing to retract his posts regarding Kent. Even if the intention is not to intimidate people into silence, I think that Jim should be (and maybe he is) willing to recognize how that can be the impression made. And why that's not healthy. I don't know if it serves anyone well if the general mood is "I can't disagree with this guy because he'll make me look like a fool." Of course, I'm very critical of Jim in my post below, and I'm yet to be skewed, so that's encouraging. Jim even sent a polite, brief email informing me that he felt he was provoked by what happened at Silliman's over the weekend; I did NOT catch what happened over there before the comment boxes were removed, so I am missing some information regarding the situation, but I hope that what I address goes beyond just this one occurrence, and I still completely stand behind it as my own two cents in encouraging intimidation-free discourse.

***

April 5

I can’t really see what the point of this is. I mean, I _can_, but it seems I have a lot of issues with it.

When I first started paying attention to the poetry blog world, last summer, when I stumbled upon it as I tried to hunt down Joshua Corey’s email address after reading some of his poems in a magazine somewhere, the two blogs that jumped out were Silliman’s and Behrle’s. Of the many uses of blogs, it seems an ever-present one is to use it as a tool of persuasion: these poems over here are valuable, this magazine, etc. One interesting aspect of following blogs is to
see the different means people take to persuade,
whether they’ll use more fundamental arguments, or
peripheral cues; that is, fundamental by drawing out the logic behind a view, or by explaining the context, aesthetics, ethics of a view. An example would be explaining in detail how NAFTA most likely in the long term would generate more (or less) domestic jobs through an explanation of economic principles, factors and variables, etc. A peripheral argument would be appealing more directly to emotion, implying a fundamental view (“Vote against NAFTA unless you want to ship out American jobs” or “Vote against NAFTA unless you’re for big powerful corporations”).

Silliman is most interesting, and most persuasive,
when he does the fundamental work: close, really
intelligent readings of poems and texts, lengthy posts about the contexts or histories of different magazines and writers. Where Silliman pushes we away is when he relies more on peripheral cues, which I’d categorize as his hints as to how a "real" poet would view things,
the hints coming in the form of dismissive
subgroupings (School of Quietude), or value simply by association, etc. I still read Silliman all the time, but with skepticism and/or cynicism as I wonder if the establishment of the us-them system that he seems to rely on so much (with the “us” being centered around Silliman (those he either knows or those whom he favors)) is a means of elevating the appearance of his own influence, prestige, and so on. I don't know, but I come to the issue with my own prejudices. A professor of mine seemed to do the same, splitting the poetry world as basically those he knew and/or had close affinities to (“us”) and everyone else (“them”),
and setting up this system as being made of two equal groups, of course elevating himself in the eyes of students who didn’t bother to notice that many of the poets in the “us” grouping weren’t really of that much relevance to anyone other than their little group, that the “us” made up maybe one percent of the poetry landscape. Silliman clearly doesn’t reduce the poetry
world to such ridiculous means, but I’m often struck by the similarities between his methods and my old professor’s, especially since their aesthetics would be on far ends of any spectrum.

Peripheral cues, I think, are necessary short-hands, and aren’t inherently good or bad; if you see a politician or figure refer to war mongering
Republicans, or panty-waisted liberals, it gives you an instant cue as to that person’s sympathies. Also, if you read an interview and the poet mentions Jack Spicer, that [can be taken as] a peripheral cue giving you information
about that poet’s values. I think many folks’
frustration with the Bush administration, aside from fundamental differences in value systems, is how it saturates any discussion with peripheral cues, almost making fundamental arguments impossible. Again, the system set-up is “either you’re with us or against us” and very seldom is it presented as an opposition of (or disagreement between) fundamental systems, each with its own underpinnings; much more often it’s presented as “we’re patriotic, masculine, spiritual and good” and the implication is: if you’re against
them then you must be the opposite. If you try to
argue why you have fundamental issues with their
interpretation of, say, “patriotic”, you risk not only being shouted down as unpatriotic, but also making yourself vulnerable to an increased volume of name-calling and such. This brings me to the impulse behind this post: so much of what I read on Behrle’s blog relies upon similar techniques: either you’re with him, or against him. I very seldom, if ever, have read a post that attempts to persuade through a primarily fundamental argument—the persuasion is attempted almost completely through peripheral cues, which you could argue is the result of not having very
well-thought-out views. But I don’t think that’s the case. It’s instead I think a recognition that people usually flip through blogs, so peripheral cues and appeals (like sound-bites) (or blurbs) may stick out more clearly, and have more immediate effect. I could be wrong on the content; I usually read his blog once or twice a week, partly out of curiosity because I think I have more fundamental issues with what I see
as his agenda than with anyone else I’ve come across in the blog world.

I think my biggest disagreement is the system (as I see it) that his blog perpetuates: if you blurb
someone’s book, or spend energy writing reviews, then you must be some kind of supplicant hack. I still am bewildered by many poet’s self-congratulation on their anti-blurbing views: “dude, it’s all about the poetry,
not the blurbs.” Yeah, well, no shit. I don’t really think anyone is arguing for a more blurb-intensive poetry space. It’s just a fact of marketing and distribution, a peripheral cue; some people accept this, and play along; some people don't accept this, and refuse to play along (they don’t write blurbs). And, apparently, some people decide to take this as an
opportunity to elevate themselves above everyone else by repeatedly pointing out how un-fundamental blurbs are, and so on. I’m trying to find an analogy—I think this might work: it’d be like an actor repeatedly telling the person who writes advertising copy, or who makes flyers, or who writes capsule summaries “man, it’s not about the advertising/flyer/summary, it’s about the play.” Again, no shit. Reality dictates though that someone is going to have to write the
advertising, make the flyer, and so on. Probably
because there’s so little money in poetry, it’s the poets themselves who end up writing the blurbs, the reviews, and so on. I don’t really see how blurbing or reviewing needs to be an ethical dilemma, unless one values one’s self so beyond any whiff of the market that one doesn’t want to dirty one’s self with it (I also recognize that one may have fundamental issues
with the system). But, if one does blurb a book, why point out that blurbs are ridiculous? This seems as much a self-fixated gesture as Kurt Cobain’s “Corporate Magazines Still Suck”, if you take that gesture as a sincere one: corporate magazines suck, but they sell albums, as does (apparently) cultivating the test-driven ‘young rebel’ persona. It's playing the rebel card in a really predictable (marketable?) way. (I’m going to use peripheral cues in place of a fundamental argument when it comes to any issue of whether or not poets should write reviews or criticism, as though criticism is just something for the market. The cues: Guy Davenport, Hugh Kenner,
Eliot Weinberger. One of the best things I've done
this year is start writing reviews, making me
double-guess my fundamental assumptions. It's fruitful work.)

I’m not sure what Jim Behrle’s beef with Kent Johnson is, whether it’s personal (my guess), professional or whatnot. As much as the argument “if you don’t like it don’t read my blog” is handy and easy to present, I don’t know if it’s that relevant: it refuses to address what the fundamental issues at play are. My thinking: stuff like this is toxic, it infects the entire discussion. Not in the manner of “if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen,” but in the manner of trying to talk and argue for or about something when there’s a person in the corner jumping up and down calling names. You can’t tell if that person is jumping up and down and calling names because he or she needs a lot of attention, or because he or she is very passionate about an issue, or because he or she wants to persuade you to his or her view via volume. But the focus inevitably draws upon
that person.

It annoys me that Jim Behrle reels in Skanky Possum and The Canary as defendants more or less, as though they need to defend their patronage of Kent Johnson’s writing by doing anything other than supporting it: it frames the issue in a Behrle-centric manner, where to be anything non- or anti-Behrle is somehow corrupt, as though his blog is on some crusade towards a purer poetry. Again, I think of many of the techniques of
the right: discouraging debate or disagreement by
relying on ridicule. Even if one’s system is very,
very flawed, one can still trumpet it by relying on peripheral cues: it distracts from the fundamental issues, and one doesn’t have to have any sort of quality of character to be effective if one is willing to yell louder and more frequently than the opposition.

Ultimately, over any length of time, relying only on peripheral cues should be ineffective: as much as one may be willing to exert great energies ridiculing those who disagree with you, or to present us-them dichotomies that place you in the spotlight, over time it seems less effective than laying down a sincere, non-hysterical fundamental argument. If you convince someone of your fundamental argument, you don’t have to extend all your energy hounding that person with peripheral cues to keep him or her in line. I have
huge issues with the extreme negativity and
self-promotion and pointlessness that goes along with things like this , but I really think the best argument is not to over-rely on tactics like saying that Jim Behrle is risking becoming the Amy Lowell of contemporary poetry, but to address the fundamental disagreement.

For the record, I aint hating on Jim for deleting me work, since I think the work I had on CWOBB sucked as it is.

He did me a favor!

God bless him, God bless Crusty Kent, Sandra, Poopy Pants Tim, and all yall motherfuckers.

WOOOOOOOOOOOO!! ee!!! BLOG WARS
yee haw BAWF.

Joey

I am willing to accept what Tony says about me. But I think what's missing is what Kent wrote about me in Ron's boxes. And then Jordan Davis when Jordan defended me with a comment on my weblog. I feel like I gave as good as I got.

I'll also say that I gave some back to Skanky because I felt like Dale was coming after me (coming to his friend's defense in his defense). I didn't want to react against Dale and his mag, I like Dale and his mag. I was feeling kind of piled on. Yes, people should subscribe to SKANKY POSSUM and THE CANARY. And people should support Kent's work. I just wish Kent would sometimes cut me some slack.

I did like Joe's poem, I think he's being a little tough on it.

Could we start a comment box for some of my ex-girlfriends? They'd love this.

Joe,
Remember the old blog days when there were fights, impersonations, pranks, people pointing fingers etc--when the only nerdy dude in the blog world was josh corey? and he was such a good spirit about it. and the only person to hate was Silly-Man? My o My things have changed.
Lighten up people. It's the fucking Internet!
Sand

Sandra,

For better, for worse: I don't remember those days, the thorazine and the shock treatments have zapped me of most memories from the past couple years.

But for some reason, when I drift off into daydream, I remember the little dogs from your blog, and they violently curse me out in French.

Love,

Joe

I'm curious what people think about Kent's refering to my struggle against alcoholism. I know that I've written about it on my weblog, but does this seem like it should be something that is used against me? I haven't had a drink in over a year and Kent has never seen me drunk. If I was a recovering heroin addict, would that be cool to bring up in Ron's comment boxes and here at the Skanky? And what does that have to do with what's happened, where two people got into it and gave each other some haymakers? I was upset when Kent mentioned it in the first place, I thought it was out of bounds. But I guess I will have to harden that underbelly, too.