Six (or Seven!)Theses in Favor of a Boyesque

by on Nov.21, 2011

Reading over Seth’s post below and the intensely negative reaction it’s garnered, a few thoughts come to mind.

Stay puft, America.

1. The Boyesque is Real

I grew up with two brothers and a sister, and watched a lot of cartoons with my little brother because I didn’t have any interest in the girl ones. Those cartoons are a steady diet of violence. The models of embodiment they offer young boys are either human-animal hybrid, robot-truck hybrid, or superhuman (He-man). These figures are themselves media for sexy violence, shown to each other or to the single female character on the show, generally wearing a bustier and generally tied up and shot with a laser of some kind. Whether Thundercats, He-men, or Transformers, these male cartoonish violent avatars all walked around in a glamorous nimbus of sex and firepower. The violence children are exposed to through these cartoons is real, it does a violence to them. Male identified children are supposed to perpetrate the violence, and females to receive it. The Boyesque and Gurlesque, respectively, seem to me to seize hold of these glamorous nimbuses of violence and force it to do unauthorized things.

2. Mediated/Art Violence is Real Violence

Seth’s covered this one in the comments field below. But I agree: violence in the media does a real violence to children and actually to all those who come in contact with it. The violence enters the viewer and re-emerges through fantasy, action, or just a troubling fluency in violence itself. My very well behaved Catholic undergrads at Notre Dame have no problem writing texts full of ultraviolence when assigned to do so (and I do assign them to try this– just to show them how much of a knowledge of the physics of violence we have). A real world application of this, if you must have one, is the guys who, trained up on video games, operate the ‘drones’, bombing Afghan wedding parties from computer consoles at bases in Virginia. These soldiers basically play a killer video game for 12 hrs at a go, and apparently their  PTSD is considerable.

3. The Boyesque, like the Gurlesque, is not a Critique.

The Boyesque it seems to me, offers a response-via-not critique or fantasy removal or prohibition of violence. Instead, analogously to the Gurlesque, it pulls this fantasmatic yet real violence to itself, forces itself to don the ill-fitting and ridiculous super-manly bodies of Saturday morning cartoons– and, importantly, commercials– and stomp out through the Ghostbusters movie-set universe. But, like the Gurlesque’s inhabitance of the cartoonishly ‘girly’,  it could fail to wear this body. It could fail to survive it. It certainly refuses to restore order, like superheroes and heteronorms are supposed to. And it refuses to give us good liberals a safe place to stand. We’re going to get covered in that StayPuft gunk as well. Maybe the Stay-Puft marshmallow man is an ill-gendered suicide bomber whose body is a weapon is a costume. Maybe Puar would agree.

4. Boys vs. Girls is a Consumer Product

Seth likes consumer products, and one ‘product’ we’re given to consume through the media and commercials is boys vs girls. The fact that toys, clothes, and entertainment comes in pink or blue flavors proves this. One response might be critique, an essay or something. Seth’s post, it seems to me, takes the Boyesque route. It makes Boys vs Girls a flamboyant, go-for-broke messy mud-fight. It’s blue supersoakers vs. pink, blue silly string vs pink, and Seth, it seems, fully expects to end up tied to a flagpole by a pink jumprope.

Seth wants to stage a pageant war between the Gurlesque and the Boyesque, make it ludicrous, oversized, and flamboyant. Why not?

5. The Gurlesque is Not Dead

Obviously if a tempest like this one can stir up on a Sunday afternoon, the Gurleque is not a dead term in American poetry conversation. Hate it, love it, or feel ambivalent about it, it has some purchase on our thinking about gender, texts and violence.

6. Boy is a Gender, Too

Please. One of the things that really surprises me about the response to Seth’s post is the assigning to him of the roles of male, privilege, hetero, and, inevitably, heterosexist. But Seth hasn’t claimed any of those identities. The only one he claims is ‘Boy’. As Boy George has shown us, the category of Boy is hardly a heteronormative one. Boy is not Daddy. Boy is not Man, or even Male. Boy is not necessarily straight. Boy is what Seth thinks it is. Isn’t that what 21st queer studies to show us? To assign him the role of white, straight, male, hetero privilege is not only to make assumptions about where he’s coming from but, it seems to me, to think with exactly the kind of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ that queer studies is supposed to critique– that is, it assumes male-straight-white-privileged is the default position until proven otherwise. Frankly, I think the same error has been made in sizing up the Gurlesque. It doesn’t seem to me these Gurls made a claim to any identity but Gurl– and that’s not the same as able bodied property owning women of voting age. To make a bunch of guesses about their backgrounds and identity and to evaluate their positions based on these seems to me to just replicate compulsory normative thinking by assuming a certain unmarked cultural position until proven otherwise.

We feminist, queer, disability media critics are supposed to be more thoughtful than that.

Does the Staypuft marshmallow man really strike you as a figure of heteronormative oppression? Then why does he have to be blown up with a laser gun by the troop of wisecracking male movie stars so they can control the reproductive choices of Sigourney Weaver?

[[7. This is so obvious to me that I forgot to articulate this before: I don’t think the category ‘Gurl’ or ‘Boy’ are modes that you need a certain biological or cultural identity pass to participate in, not at all. If ever there were lit modes that recognized the cultural construction of gender these would be the ones.]]

26 comments for this entry:
  1. Cathy

    But we have to call it not the Boyesque but the Boyique. Boy Eek! Bring ’em on.

  2. Lara Glenum

    Love this post, Joyelle.

    “The Boyesque and Gurlesque, respectively, seem to me to seize hold of these glamorous nimbuses of violence and force it to do unauthorized things.”

    Yes. Unauthorized. A melee! Everybody goes off script!

    Seth, please run with this project.

  3. t.w.

    Cute picture. Btw, does anyone want to report what Notley said to Seth during this discussion?

  4. Tim Jones-Yelvington

    I am so sad I missed all this fun over the weekend. I like Danielle’s comment, I like Feng’s comment, I like “teh ‘real’) Lara’s comments, I like Seth’s follow up comment, I love this post. I can appreciate cartoon binaries like happy meal toys. I gueeeeeeeess I’m down for the boy-girl supersoaker fight so long as it’s OK if I stand on the sidelines… or better yet, the center of the battlefield, pour a bucket of water or marshmallow or whatever gunk stuff we’ve chosen over my head, and pose.

  5. JT

    “Is the era of the boy over?” Certainly not!

    Will the era of the boy be fascinating? Certainly so!

    Thanks for this post, Joyelle– a “pageant war between the Gurlesque and the Boyesque” will be hairy, and grass-stained, and snot-nosed– full of txt msgs and half-felt emoticons. Yes!

    What I do want to note here is that what makes Seth’s post difficult to follow (at least for me) is his seemingly gripe-y tone– which doesn’t seem to be about the lack of boyesque poets but in turn the celebration of gurlesque poetics. i.e. Fence’s publications, reading invitations, etc. that all appear to ‘exclude’ boy poets, negate them, undervalue them, mis-label them. I had a hard time buying into this…

    Perhaps this is a misreading– and perhaps Seth’s post was a performative gesture of the boyesque, though at times, from a rhetorical perspective, I couldn’t be sure what he was advocating for or complaining against.

  6. Joyelle McSweeney

    Hey, all–
    Yes, I should say that my post here is my reading *of* Seth, rather than speaking *for* Seth. He might not agree with my theses. I’m not sure I’d have a place in the super-soaker fight, either, Tim– I always hated those (girly of me)– besides that, I’m pretty male-identified. Though I would go for a dance-off (once, as teens, my sister and I watched two little girls do a macarena off– it was real, frightening, violent, gender-parodic, and memorable. It happened in the dressing room of the Limited in front of the 3-way mirrors. I think this supersoaker war, as a pageant, would require spectators, maybe also judges and fashion commentators). JT, yes, I do think that Seth’s salvo was maybe literally a salvo, a kind of cute and strange act of aggression, a performance of the boyesque. I really am thinking about the gender parable of Ghostbusters now, for which Seth should, I think, be commended.

  7. Tim Jones-Yelvington

    O, I mostly LOVED water fights, but it was of course always about GETTING soaked, not soaking. And the idea of boys-vs-girls probably would’ve just made me go, Ew, I don’t want to be on this team. I def experience Seth’s rhetoric as performative, and I think cute and strange describes it quite well, but then I also worry about whether I am defanging him or something by categorizing his provocations as performance (like when, at the halloween party I came out to South Bed for, he began vocalizing his desire to divide the room into two groups and lead some of us into the gas chamber) in a way that aestheticizes it and assigns it to the category “art” in a way that makes it more abstract and palatable or less alarming for me or something, as in, Of course he doesn’t REALLY want to kill these people, he’s HILARIOUS. But if I read him at face value, he is making no distinction between artifice-performance and his “real,” his commitment to total art is total, and he believes his life practices and aesthetics should be aligned, there should not be a distinction between them. I dunno… IS that just a provocation? Several times now my initial reaction to Seth has been discomfort or alienation, but then when I get closer, I am greatly entertained or love the shit out of both him and the art. (I think this is good, I think this is engagement). Like whether I “agree” with it all or not (who cares?), his comment in that thread, taken as a text, is total gorgeous yum. And his PRETTY LITTLE LIARS fanzine is just the most brilliant thing ever, I want to, like, embalm it or something so that the pages never decompose.

  8. Danielle Pafunda

    Dudes! (snicker!)

    I have long been in favor of what Joyelle calls here boyesque. If poets would please go for that 100%, I’d be permanently psyched. I’d also love to see boi-esque and etc.

    Howevs, I don’t think we can really fully abstract boy from things like “male, privilege, hetero, and, inevitably, heterosexist.” The boy as a US American cultural construction is completely tainted by these terms, just as the girl is. As mama of one of each: I am FREAKED OUT.

    In the development of boyesque poets are gonna have to work out how they want to descriptively perform/embody/do boy and all its connotations. I don’t think there’s anything amiss about the wariness with which some of Seth’s claims were met (especially as he’s still developing his rhetorical approach). Nor do I think anyone was permanently jamming him in the oppressor category. I think we’re working to figure out how the boy and individual boys move fluidly in a state of privileged-subaltern (like white girls do, like anyone who occupies simultaneously categories of privilege and marginalization).

    Secondary observation: readers do not get over the fact that an ADULT (by legal, cultural, or other such definitions) is writing boy or girl. We can’t just reject that–we’ve got to work with it. ***I want to talk about cosmopolitical anthropology which Adam has just clued me into, but I don’t get it yet. I think, when I do get it, it’ll be exciting & helpful:

    ALSO! It’s important (to me, at least) to acknowledge a problematic relationship between gurlesque and heteronormativity. This relationship stems from the fact that we culturally construct the girl as HETERO, no matter the spectrum of sexual identities girls assume. Let me say this with some (ha!) authority: my girl poems have a problematic relationship with heteronormativity. That’s why they’re what Joyelle terms not a critique. We also culturally construct the boy as HETERO, so I imagine boyesque will have an equally frictive, troubling, destabilizing relationship to heteronormativity.

    Thought about queer studies: even in the 21st century, it often makes some dangerous assumptions about maleness, adulthood, and normativity. Fem theories assumptions about adulthood are just now getting tackled by certain strands of girls’ studies (whoo-hoo!). Postmodern identity theories are working hard, but they’re not without major f-ups.

    I actually don’t totally get the Ghostbusters parable, yet, but I will keep thinking about it.

    Also: when I was a girl, we tied the boys to TREES and locked them in DOG CRATES. Also: marshmallow gunk. I will eat it. When I was little, Sesame Street ran a short of kids eating marshmallow gunk out of plastic buckets off big wooden spoons in a park, I swear, it was my dream to be there.

    With affection and intense interest, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FRIENDS!

  9. Joyelle McSweeney

    Tim, you’re so right- I don’t want to defang him when I say ‘performance’- b/c/ I don’t think a performance is ‘just’ a performance. Everything in culture (and I don’t just mean the Arts) is fake, elective, artificial, and that’s why it’s so vertiginous. It’s both a performance AND real. That’s what makes some Art (like Seth’s– like yours) exhilarating, frightening, sheer, vertiginous– because you realize that the performance is the real.

  10. David Applegate

    This is all very interesting. I see Seth as arguing for equal applause for both male & female poets who invoke (mediated / real) violence but those assertions appear mitigated continuously by a weird kind of infantilization. In Seth’s comment the Holocaust appears as a Hollywood film but the invoked violence quickly devolves into Stay-Puft campiness & Super Soaker battles. Remember, Stay-Puft only appears after the fattest Ghost-buster calls him into being; infant orality transformed into mediated / real disruptive cartoon. Asserting “equal rights” to present violent material is great but the impact of the assertion is lessened considerably when the violence can only manifest itself in a water war. I’m thinking particularly of Borzutzky’s conflation of poet with terrorist in his latest book as a kind of counter-point to the regressive, child-like battles Seth’s writing about.

  11. Joyelle McSweeney

    Hi David, I see what you’re saying. I actually know a lot more work of Seth’s, being his advisor, and what he mostly writes about in his poems is Nazis and fashion. So he doesn’t mean it to be less real by calling upon the cartoon– in fact the opposite. The spectre of cartoon violence cuts to the quick– we’re conditioned to it, and its realness prepares us for the physical violence, to be its perpetrator or its victim. Nazi propaganda often relied on literal cartoons. The physical and mental violence become bioidentical. So I don’t know that Seth would delink the two or set up the binary this way. But maybe I should stop answering for him.

  12. David Applegate

    Thank you for the reply, Joyelle. I should clarify I don’t see the Nazi / cartoon connection as a binary or delinked in Seth’s call-to-arms. It’s a soupy or messy connection. In fact, I think they remain TOO linked to successfully interfere with “the tyrannical rule of the mass-produced product.” The costumed / cartoon Nazi who returns to rule us doesn’t seem to rupture the code, it’s not as “made-up as possible.” If there’s a binary here at all, I think it is boy / man or child / Daddy-Mommy.

  13. Joyelle McSweeney

    Yes, I see your point– and I think (I would guess) that Seth does not want to undo the tyrannical rule but amplify it, send his products out on the same wavelength… But this late in the day I am starting to feel a little weird about answering *for* him when I’m not totally sure my ideas and his are copacetic… So now I’m going to sign off, threadies! Seth, you pick it up next.

    Thank you everyone for pulling this idea out in interesting directions!

  14. Tim Jones-Yelvington

    Joyelle — For sure, I know you know this, when I talked abt defanging I was thinking mostly of my own reaction to him — there is a way that despite knowing better, I absolutely still think of “performance” as something that is “knowing” or “winking” or “self critical” or “aware of its own artifice,” which makes artistic violence or violent art feel safer, b.c, you know, it’s just “art.” For me, this critical vs. not a critique piece is key. There is “a part of me” (I really despise this fractured self language, but there is a reality to it in terms of how I feel) that deeply admires Seth for being able to go full hog into this “not a critique mode,” it’s so simultaneously glorious and horrifying. I don’t think I am capable of such a full-on commitment to amplification rather than critique. I absolutely try to work with the performance as “real” in my project, and I have found the rejection of critique and critical consciousness to be soooo creatively energizing and liberating, discovering that there is a way to make stuff that is disruptive and political without being stuck in this tiresome and straitjacketing “critique” mode (it’s one of the reasons I like to hang around here), but I also feel way too steeped in too many years of social justice movement work and anti-oppression ally politics to ever be able to not also practice critique (I mean, years ago I used to think I was going to grow up and be a social movement author like Baldwin or Arundhati Roy or something, and that all of my writing would be about deconstructing white, middle class, cismale, etc. privilege), so what tends to happen is a sort of fracturing of these two modalities, which… I don’t love, I don’t think.

  15. peter

    wow, i think Seth need a copy of Hitler’s Mustache.

  16. Johannes

    Peter, he totally does. You need to read his wild and formally brilliant work.

    (Joyelle wrote this)

    Tim, well keep pushing. There’s more than one way to skim this cat. Seth’s is ravishing but not the only way (obviously!!) Maybe you’ll arrive at a heterogeneous approach (I’m thinking Ryan Trecartin and the maxims that surface as verbal jetsam on his insanely violent tide– they aren’t critique exactly but they’re koanlike, kinda mindbending), or some kind of schizoid “syn”-thesis, emphasis on the ‘syn’– what would happen when you force extremes into intimacy without moving to a middle point– a kind of spasm– Catherine Clement has a great book called ‘syncope’ about this– the radical ‘dropping out of rational time’ that happens as the dialectical pendulum is swinging but before it reaches synthesis… I might be misquoting… check it out.

    (Joyelle also wrote this)

  17. stephen

    i appreciate why heteronormative culture/art is upsetting/manipulative/oppressive/would cause people to want to “address,” deny, revolt against, thwart, etc. that prevailing thing in some way. But i don’t agree with an assumption that white hetero males are guilty/complicit in some evil or by-default the makers of “bad” art if they act/write in a way that is not consciously/obviously non- or anti-masculine, non- or anti- hetero. I understand how and why someone would assume that, but I refuse to live by it/accept it. I do understand that there are ways in which a writer can be consciously, aggressively, egregiously offensive or obviously misogynistic, racist. I do not believe in censorship.

    I would like to see the evolution or revelation of awareness/mindfulness/understanding in art/society/culture on the basis of race, gender, class as a welcome thing done by individuals and in concert and reacted to primarily on an individual basis rather than as mouthpieces of an intellectual mob mentality or intellectual clique mentality, as the case may be. I dislike a political literary culture. I don’t see reading or writing as dictated by morals, politics, identity, or academic thought. I will read or write whatever I want. To each her own.

    I’m not interested in arguing over what type of restraints or gags are appropriate to wear when writing. I feel confused by “my identity” w/r/t gender, race, I am interested in it. But I don’t feel it is ultimately what I’m most interested in. I am more interested in the possibility of love and in the shadow of death. I have awareness of how I’m perceived, and I want to love all people as best I can. But I don’t want to write by dictate of politics or academic/indie lit fads. I want to write for myself and for a unspecified reader who may be moved or excited. I’m not preoccupied with the “importance,” “relevance,” “interest,” “discourse,” “rhetoric,” or “gender” of my writing.

  18. stephen

    i sound pretty preemptively defensive, heh.. idk.. * sigh* some thing is unresolved.

    all best to y’all montevidayans

  19. Seth Oelbaum

    Peter, I’ve ordered your book from my library. I can’t wait to read it.

  20. Russell Jaffe

    I absolutely loved this; thank you, Joyelle, for writing this up. I feel that boyesque is often a floating nebula of consumer signifiers attatched to the formative parts of identity and can, therefore, stratify gender rather than associate with it; early on, the indoctrination process begins that suggest (strongly) boys = blue, trucks, GI Joes (in my case Ninja Turtles/Kenner’s Alien action figures line) and girls = pink, dolls, houses. And the implied suggestions of those objects–you know, dolls = mothering, action figures = conflict, violence segue into things like video games, TV shows, etc. There are these foggy paths that take these objects into adulthood. Like a lot of pop art, boyesque can do amazing things for projecting images into a hollowness of self-perception and significant memory.

  21. Seth Oelbaum

    Joyelle reads me. I don’t want to change anything. I love products. They’re immortal. My Stitch teddy bear will never die. He doesn’t have a heart or lungs. He’s not vulnerable. He’ll keep going. I continue to find it vexing to go from hanging out with Gods to human beings. There’s such a drop in quality. People aren’t built for infinity. Most of them only last 80 years or so. They’re impermanence makes me uncomfortable. How can I develop a glamorous, hyperbolic relationship with something if it’s not forever? Marriage is supposed to be forever. But marriage is an adult institution. So really, as the divorce numbers show, it’s not. Adults are not extreme: they’re pragmatic, reasonable: they’re people. Adults only live for so long. They’re inevitably going to stray and find other adults to interact with. They want to make the most of their time. But children never deviate. In none of the Pooh books does Christopher Robin make a human friend. He socializes exclusively with Pooh and his other inhuman associates. He’s extreme. He fully embraces the material despotism. Adults find ways to mitigate it. But I don’t like half-measures. I want the whole thing. The adult movie makes me think of mediocrity and Obama. The child movie makes me think of glamour and Lady Gaga. Everything is a product in varying degrees of intensity. My goal is to be the most intense.

  22. Alan May

    I’ve been thinking about the boyesque and its possibilities. Maybe a poet could reject his paternal role through the boyesque and claim violence as a tool of his own/take away his tool(heh!) from father and country.

    Could the boyesque help one avoid draft registration?

    By the way, should we consider Jerry Sandusky’s victims privileged?

  23. Seth A.

    I appreciate this post: It’s thoughtful and sincere and intelligent. But I also think it should be said that the “boyesque” already exists, there are already practitioners of it (a terrible phrase, but I’m using it only as a shorthand here), and as a mode of discourse it bears almost no relationship whatsoever to how it’s been described here — in this post specifically, or in this conversation generally. I know these things because I wrote and published a boyesque book — it’s called Northerners — and because I regularly have conversations with fellow younger poets (usually, but not exclusively, male poets) about how this sort of poetics is developing (again, usually, but not exclusively, among younger male poets). What I see in this post, and elsewhere, are some completely well-intentioned, earnest, and incredibly astute recitations of how those who don’t write boyesque poems _wish_ the boyesque would identify itself, which forms of cultural rhetoric it would problematize, &c. I appreciate — but also (non-emotionally; i.e., intellectually) resent — those attempts. The narrative currently in place for the 21st c. male (particularly in the Academy) bears very, very little relationship to the lived experience of the masculine consciousness in this place and in this time. Masculinity has, by some, been reduced to little more than a foil for other discourses with which it absolutely has an ongoing and critical dialogue but which do not and cannot wholly define or circumscribe masculinity (or the boyesque) in any serious way. Violence is _one_ trope among many in the boyesque, and likely not one of the central ones; I don’t see how it’s at all helpful for those with little personal artistic investment in the boyesque to propose how those who _are_ so invested should pursue it (even if there is, and there definitely is, an accompanying — and I do think gracious and well-intended — disclaimer of any such intent in all such quasi-prescriptions).

    If Seth O. wants to connect up with others writing work in this vein, that’s something that can happen — speaking only for myself, not only did I write a boyesque book of poetry, I also meet almost weekly with two other young male poets just here in Madison to discuss this poetics (using this nomenclature or another; one problem with the “boyesque” moniker is that it is a poetics far more invested in transformation — from “boy” to “man” — than that prescriptive sort of nickname would seem to allow; I don’t have a specific alternative preference, but The New Masculinity would probably be much, much closer to the mark, however preposterous it sounds to me in many respects).

    Boyesque/TNM poetics are every bit as complex as those of the gurlesque, and every bit as resistant (I think) to being externally defined by those with only an academic investment in the subject. For instance, TNM poetics is heavily invested in classical rhetoric (a tool of persuasion traditionally coded masculine, rightly or wrongly), “masculine” grammar (e.g., copulative verbs, declarative/declamatory language, first-person POV, iambic rhythms, &c), an animistic writing process, epic/mythic frameworks, &c. To reduce it to a “topical” (my term) narrative about violence — and to imply masculinity is primarily defined by its correlation to femininity, and has no or few other valences — is pretty upsetting to read, honestly. Frankly, when Robert Bly wrote _Iron John: A Book About Men_ two decades ago he initiated a boyesque in poetry — and because some folks in the Academy didn’t like what Bly was saying about men, boys, and masculinity, however much his male readers were telling him (and anyone who would listen) that he had tapped into their _actual_ lived experience of American culture, Bly was nevertheless roundly ridiculed (and some of the rhetorical inclinations of those who ridiculed Bly are well in evidence here). Seth O. should read _Iron John_ — as should anyone else interested in this topic — and then realize, too, that whether you like the narrative framework it gestures toward or not is immaterial. The boyesque isn’t about you, just as the gurlesque is extremely interesting to me on multiple levels, addresses themes I care about, &c., but is not “about” me in the sense that I’m in a position (or feel I should be) to shape the poetics itself.

    The recent indie movie _Take Shelter_ is the closest media look at the state of masculinity in the 21st c. now available; perhaps the primary theme of the boyesque (and one seen in that movie) is a kind of existential horror that renders masculine self-identity all but incoherent and (where coherent) _self_-destructive; reading the narratives put forward in this thread and others is like reading academic studies of masculinity from forty years ago, by those who may well (I can’t know) feel derision for those (largely male) academics who founded Masculinity Studies on campuses around the country in the 1990s so that the same sort of intellectual rigor could be applied to interrogating masculinity as is applied to femininity.

    Obviously the boyesque is not monolithic — Northerners is not Brandon Shimoda, which is turn is not Adam Fell or Matt Hart or Mark Leidner, which is turn is not Kai Carlson-Wee. The discourse is always the same, however, even if the modes of proceeding change superficially. But I’m sure none of those mentioned above, or any other of the hundreds of younger male poets working in this vein (keeping in mind that the boyesque/TNM could as easily be written by a heteronormative female or gender-queer individual as anyone else; it’s a poetics, not a boys’ club) relish the idea of having their poetics prescribed to them by those who haven’t sought out the sort of engagement with the topic they have.


  24. Seth A.

    P.S. Sorry for the typos — read “in” for “is” in several spots in that last paragraph.

  25. peter

    thanks, seth.

  26. » CWA Event: Innovative Women Writers in Publishing Creative Writing Association

    […] About the boyesque/gurlesque: […]