Emily Warn said:

>(Mark Nowak’s recent posts on “poetry produced within social movements,” and Alan Gilbert’s posts from Naropa on the relationship between art and society seem to complicate and extend Levertov and Duncan’s conversation about whether a poet's role is to "oppose evil" or "to imagine it.")

Yes, Emily, you're right.

However, in the case of the recent "my kind of people" posts on a leading, prominent Stalinist figure who was ideologically aligned with massive, unspeakable crimes in the USSR, not to mention outright thuggery and dishonesty within the realm of U.S. left politics, one wonders if there isn't a third choice? To boot: "Progressive" poets also can, when convenient, pass evil over in silence!

Kent

Kent,

You made this accusation before on Mark's post. It went unanswered. Are you saying that not responding to your accusation is tantamount to passing "evil over in silence"? I'd hate to see a post about Ange's thought-provoking essay devolve into accusations and counter-accusations that have already been made. In terms of those accusations, I'd love a pointer to Claudia Jones' actual literary work. Mark provided pointers to a book about her life and work. Without reading both, I have no basis on which to judge your comment, and I bet most other readers do not either.

But I do appreciate you being part of the open and democratic conversation on Harriet.

Thanks!

Of course poets -- like all people -- pass over evil in silence when convenient -- well, perhaps not all poets, perhaps there are poets whose every waking hour is devoted in some way to social transformation and dissent and protest -- and contrarily, not to say contrarianly, some poets in fact do not care to let the Perpetual World at War intrude into their poetry at all -- and that's fine! Because there is no stage direction for the poet's role.

It is funny (-peculiar) to me that I can be so sympathetic to Duncan's theoretical position but prefer Leventov's poetry (in general).

Often a poet's positions run counter to their practices.

As Emily can attest, I had written her, asking that my above comment be taken down, as its point seemed a bit out of place under the Duncan/Levertov post. But it was too late to do so, apparently.

In any case, I did want to say, since Emily has posed the question, that no, I am not referring above to Mark Nowak's silence towards *me* (he's free to choose what topics he wants to engage or not, who he wants to engage with, and so on!).

What I mean by "passing evil over in silence," rather, is Mark's failure to even mention--in these rosy, soft-focused posts for a leading CPUSA ideologue and unapologetic defender of Stalin's policies and purges ("she's my kind of people," says Mark)--the rather weighty matter of the *Stalinist terror*, which, as everyone (I think!) now knows, killed millions of innocent people, wiped out a whole generation of revolutionary socialists, and, thanks to the legacy of its horrors, set back left working class politics for, oh, three or four hundred years.

I am simply proposing, then, that expressing such unqualified enthusiasm for past Stalinist figures is a somewhat problematic thing to do, and on various levels--particularly if one is seeking to move poetry in activist directions and connect its practice to the development of class consciousness, as Mark obviously is.

Though what teaching the "poems and songs" of the Weather Underground (!!??) has now to do with that laudable effort, I'm not exactly sure...

Kent

Hi Kent,

Thanks for pointing out my mistaken assumption and for further clarifying your point. Just FYI...others have responded to your previous comments on Mark's original post.

Emily

Emily said:

>Just FYI...others have responded to your previous comments on Mark's original post.

And I've responded, in turn!

thanks,

Kent