Feedback on Issue 12
The response to Issue 12 "A Fetish for Good Poetry" has almost all been very positive. A few people have raised interesting questions about our inclusion of several gay-themed poems in the issue. Aditi Machado even Twittered about it: "Why is gay sex 'weird'?"
In her case, the confusion probably arose from Nigel's (obviously, I thought) tongue-in-cheek use of "weird" in his editorial. In this twittering age, irony is a risky thing.
We also interpreted the theme fairly loosely, of necessity. Otherwise we would have had to eliminate much of the issue.
Take Marybeth Rua-Larsen's "Aubade," for example. The speaker sounds more like an adventurous wife adding some spice to her marriage than a fetishist in the strictest sense of the word. And the speaker in Michael Ferris's "Those Hills" just happens to like a nice ass - that's hardly unusual. We accepted those poems because we liked them and they were at least tangentially relevant to the theme, though not necessarily right smack on the nose.
Anyway, these questions raise some interesting questions themselves. As I see it, all of Jee's poems in the issue have a kinky element, independent of orientation. But just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that wasn't the case. Is including a sexy poem by a gay poet in a fetish-themed issue the same as literally equating "gay" with "fetishistic"? I don't think so. And underlying that question is another, trickier, question: inaccuracy aside, is there something insulting about such an equation? Only if you think fetishes are bad.
In her case, the confusion probably arose from Nigel's (obviously, I thought) tongue-in-cheek use of "weird" in his editorial. In this twittering age, irony is a risky thing.
We also interpreted the theme fairly loosely, of necessity. Otherwise we would have had to eliminate much of the issue.
Take Marybeth Rua-Larsen's "Aubade," for example. The speaker sounds more like an adventurous wife adding some spice to her marriage than a fetishist in the strictest sense of the word. And the speaker in Michael Ferris's "Those Hills" just happens to like a nice ass - that's hardly unusual. We accepted those poems because we liked them and they were at least tangentially relevant to the theme, though not necessarily right smack on the nose.
Anyway, these questions raise some interesting questions themselves. As I see it, all of Jee's poems in the issue have a kinky element, independent of orientation. But just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that wasn't the case. Is including a sexy poem by a gay poet in a fetish-themed issue the same as literally equating "gay" with "fetishistic"? I don't think so. And underlying that question is another, trickier, question: inaccuracy aside, is there something insulting about such an equation? Only if you think fetishes are bad.
posted by Ivana Dashemoff at 9:11 am
6 comments
