Just A Bit of Randomness (Maybe)

I'm on the pursuit of happiness, and I know....everything that glitters ain't always gonna be gold....

Marcus Jamison, the Rare Poet

Okay, Here's An Example of Where Passionate Complaints Should Come AFTER Investigation

For those of you who took the time to read my previous post, it has been brought to my attention that the supposed letter to Thomas Sayers Ellis was not real.  That does make me rest a bit better.  But if such a view of poetry does exist, at least we all know my opinion on it.

Marcus Jamison, the Rare Poet

Dear TSE: Nothing Poetic about White House Rejection Letter

About a week ago, here in this our nation's great capital, a poetry reading was presented by the White House.  I was extremely excited to be in such proximity (even though, for some reason, I found myself  not invited...lol), and proud that poetry continues to make leaps and bounds towards universal acceptance.  However, there was something else that left me a bit unsettled.   

Most of us heard the ill-conceived debate over including Common in the performance at the White House.   I will not humor Sarah Palin's asinine rants about him by repeating them here.  I will just say that attempting to scare  conservative white Americans into unnecessary mass hysteria should get old after a while.  Too bad some Republicans don't think so.

I guess I'm even mentioning the above to say that while some controversy (as pointless and idiotic as it seems to be) has received far too much discussion/media coverage, one remains untouched.  I may be moved to write a second post, highlighting the White House's efforts to continue to present poetry and spoken word within its walls, but I also feel like they are cheating what poetry represents.  There is too much exclusionary practice involved when selecting the poets for their events.  Nowhere is this more clear than in the letter sent to Thomas Sayers Ellis, following his rejection. 


If poetry is to be an outlet of expression, should it be so boldly censored?  I understand, from a political perspective, that it is often a requirement of those who run this nation to distance themselves from controversy.  Any and all controversy.  However, the hilarity of that situation is that running from one form of controversy often creates another in the direction you've run.  Politicians have long had this strange notion that you can please all the people, even if the people disagree.  But I digress.  

Upon reading the letter, I can't help but feel like Jeremy Bernard, the White House Social Secretary, is very misinformed about poetry, as well as extremely smug.  I'll let you decide.

Letter to Thomas Sayers Ellis.  (Link is to the Huffington Post, where I discovered the letter)

Dear TSE (as you like to be called, evoking a predecessor of those initials):

We appreciate your nomination for the White House poetry reading, but regret to inform you that you will not be one of the selected poets. This is not a judgment of your poetry by any means, and certainly you should feel free to apply next year. It's not unknown for a poet to be invited on subsequent tries, though at the moment we're hard pressed to think of an example. We had an interesting time puzzling over Skin, Inc.: Identity Repair Poems. It's hard to classify this book. Frankly, we don't know where you're coming from. 

And that's a problem.

For instance, you title one of your poems "Presidential Blackness [A Race Fearlessness Manifolk Destiny]." The title alone is problematic. We don't want donors to get the wrong idea. As you know, we live in a post-racial society, so the title just brings up wrong associations. You start the poem, "We miracles. We have not known true freedom in / America or in Art, thus our work has struggled in / containers not of our own construction." Speak for yourself, buddy! The President got to where he is not because of miracles. It was hard work, make no mistake about it. In the same poem, you write, "To make an identity repair-kit of all black folk / behavior, to shine or show-off, as nuisance as / nuance, sometimes some-timey and sometimes on- / point, the slanguage of hood ornaments." We have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, who is this "all black folk?" Who are you--or anyone--to judge such an abstraction? Secondly, are you saying that black people are in need of repair? Who's going to undertake this repair? TSE, the current era is a time of healing national differences. The repairs have already been made.Your long poem, "Mr. Dynamite Splits [ James Joseph Brown, Jr.]"--We have a feeling Michelle would have a problem with these lines: "Your eeeeeeeeeeyow will never rest. / You remain proud, cold bodyheat and sweat, / that muthafucka Black Caesar, / the only one who ever murdered dying." Black Caesar is not terminology we like to use around these precincts.

Who is the audience for this poem?

We actually do like your "Race Inauguration Day [A Short Fiction]." Sort of. You write, "So we skinned ourselves, / zipper down the body middle, / right there on the National Mall, / the moment the poet, / cold as her tone, enjambed America with "Love."" So this is on the whole wholesome. But there is too much of a dialectic going on, to use that old-fashioned college jargon. It seems like something has been fought over, something won, something is in balance. Where does that feeling come from? It's not the kind of thing we want to convey even in subtle hints. The past is a foreign country. We've moved on. So should the country.

Finally, we know that neither Michelle nor the President would care for "Wacko Jacko." The poor guy is dead. Can we all move on? You write: "Lips, a tattoo, not a relief but a permanent painting of a kiss. / Predators, like female owls, in both eyes. / Mouth, a sharp snake. Snake, a pale cave. / The wildlife in the songs comes from / the same venom stubble comes from, testosterone, the body's land / of seized porn." Just very, very offensive to Michael Jackson's memory. Why would we want to inflame the passions of those who already hate Michael Jackson by releasing--sorry, reading--this poem at the White House?

In short, we appreciate your work as one of America's finest young African American poets and wish you much success in your future endeavors. Feel free to get in touch with any suggestions, comments, or feedback. We love feedback. Also, the President's reelection campaign is on. If you'd like to contribute, go to the website. We appreciate small contributions from small donors, just like you! And remember, poetry and the arts serve to enlighten and uplift the people, not obfuscate matters by getting into needless complexities. So here's to clarity!

Sincerely,

White House Social Secretary

 ----

At first, all I could say upon reading this is "Wooowwww!!"  Is this for real?  I've searched the web for some type of outrage about this letter, but even at the Huffington Post, there was very little commentary.  Which I find interesting.  This letter is down right rude, full of statements that offended ME, and it's not even directed to me.  The statements that got to me the most:

1) This is not a judgment of your poetry by any means.....

         If this is not judgement, then what the fuck is?!?   You can't say you have no clue where a poet is coming from, call the title of one poem problematic, question whether he has an audience or who it could possibly be, basically classify his writing as "needless complexities" and then say you're not being judgmental.  Cut the niceties.  This read a bit too much like an attack.  (Plus that atrocious comment in the greeting, about referencing T.S. Elliot's  initials just rubbed me the wrong way, right from the start.  If this letter had read "Dear Wannabe", it would have felt just the same.)

2)  We don't want donors to get the wrong idea.

         Well I'll be damned.  Political staff actually admitting that the actions of politicians are donor-driven?  I don't think I need to say too much about this.  Poetry and politics are two p's that simply don't mix.  Which is backwards, since poets are often the voice of the people.  And if I hear one more thing about this so called "post-racial" society we live in.....if this society is so post-racial, why do government forms still ask for race on them?!?  

3)  Speak for yourself, buddy! The President got to where he is not because of miracles. It was hard work, make no mistake about it.

         

         Not only is this a pointless statement, it is not what the line Bernard quoted implied at all.

4)  The past is a foreign country. We've moved on. So should the country.

         If the past really were a foreign country (and I might offend some people with this one), we wouldn't be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, we wouldn't have killed Bin Laden, and most of the wars our nation has been involved in wouldn't have ever started.  But then again, you know how this nation's leaders do foreign countries.  Tolerate them until they get on our nerves, then treat them like they don't exist.  To me, it sounds like Bernard wanted to say is "Damn, you have a black President.  Forget all the enslavement, oppression, torture, misappropriation, displacement, and disappointment, and move the fuck on."  But I don't think he was allowed to say that.

5)  Also, the President's reelection campaign is on. If you'd like to contribute, go to the website. We appreciate small contributions from small donors, just like you!

         Being an asshole is not becoming of the White House Social Secretary.  This is one of those snide remarks that made this letter all the more repulsive.

All five of these irritating moments led to perhaps the most unsettling section of this letter.

And remember, poetry and the arts serve to enlighten and uplift the people, not obfuscate matters by getting into needless complexities.

First of all, how dare you tell a poet what their poetry is supposed to do.  And then to assume that poetry is merely some form of simple entertainment is a blow to everyone whose ever lifted a pen.  Sometimes, poetry has to lower the people.  It has to push them down into a pit of self-loathing so deep that they desire to better themselves and get out.  Enlightenment traverses truth, and the truth has never been concerned with what donors it might offend.  If doesn't want us to forget the past, because this is where most of its lessons emerge from.  And the truth, whether complex or simple, is always needed.

Until the White House has a more informed view on poetry, one that is less politically driven and instead more driven by a desire to spread the power found in using one's voice, then these White House Poetry events will be nothing more than censorship dressed up in an almost poetic package.

Marcus Jamison, the Rare Poet

Lmao....since it was brought to my attention that the letter was a joke, this is my response.