1 2 3 4  6
Comment 11 of 51, added on July 9th, 2012 at 9:21 AM.
xCgux7 Really enjoyed this article post.Really thank you! Really Cool.
Comment 10 of 51, added on July 9th, 2012 at 8:10 AM.
IueUg5 Thanks for the article post. Keep writing.
Social Network Submissions
Comment 9 of 51, added on March 20th, 2012 at 5:52 PM.
Wow, great post.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
wholesale men clothing
Comment 8 of 51, added on March 8th, 2012 at 10:12 AM.
Lv4EGf Awesome article. Want more.
Discount OEM Software
from Brunei Darussalam, Negara
Comment 7 of 51, added on March 8th, 2012 at 8:42 AM.
ol8Gbj Very good article post. Fantastic.
Adobe OEM Software
Comment 6 of 51, added on March 8th, 2012 at 8:42 AM.
DyHCb5 Im thankful for the article post.Really looking forward to read
Discount OEM Software
Comment 5 of 51, added on April 10th, 2008 at 4:08 AM.
It's in there, full blown. I'm looking at the original book from '81 right
Gitter from United States
Comment 4 of 51, added on October 7th, 2005 at 3:58 PM.
the "fuck" was never in the poem to begin with--forche did the dashes
herself. which is an interesting move, in and of itself.
Comment 3 of 51, added on October 2nd, 2005 at 10:11 AM.
Thanks for posting Forch&eaccute;'s poem here--it's good to see her poems
Only one criticism I have, and that's about the editing out of the word
"fuck" in line 28 of the poem. It may seem small, but its censorship brings
up two important issues regarding art and the dissemination of it.
First, there is the issue of the preservation of the work of art itself.
Even a small change such as your insertion of three dashes to replace three
letters affects the reading of the poem: did the author intentionally
censor the "obscenity" and leave in the more obscene description of the
ears and all of its implications? What effect does that have on the poem?
Or did she put in the full word, only to have it redacted by a later
editor? Or...? You begin to see my point. Having never read the poem
before, would I have thought to make sure the version you published on your
site was the original? It was only a fortunate thought that brought it to
mind on my part; others might not have the same good chance.
Second is the issue of priority of values. Why is it more
offensive/dangerous to publish the work "fuck" than to discuss the whole
idea of governing by force, cutting off ears of dissenters, etc.? After
all, "fuck" connotes a sexual act, an act of love, care, and pleasure
between individuals. It's act is also an act of reproduction, of furthering
human life. There's no violence in it, no forced sex (that is rape).
Dictatorship, the violent rejoicing of power over weakness, and the implied
and stated atrocities that are a large part of the subject of
Forch&eaccute;'s poem are far more dispicable than a simple word meaning a
natural act of love, pleasure, and reproduction. I realize that some people
are offended by the use of words such as "fuck," but it's not the poet's
job to cater to the audience's whims. By editing the poem thus, you
inadvertently change the nature of the piece--you alter a precisely
balanced piece of art, you censor a word, and you change the reading of it.
You also effectively say that the violent subject of the work is acceptable
but a mere word for sex isn't.
David Clark from United States
Comment 2 of 51, added on March 29th, 2005 at 4:47 AM.
Noted, and I have edited these poems to correctly show Carolyn Forché as
the author. Thanks for letting me know, and making the site better!
This poem has been commented on more than 10 times. Click below to see the other comments.
1 2 3 4  6