Sunday, May 01, 2005

Double-Snark: Meta-language is meta-bullshit, Lame Rhetorical Questions are certainly bullshit

Speaking of vacuity, how about Words About Words and Lame Rhetorical Questions? Mix them together and you've got a recipe for some snarkable quasi-spiritual post-LangPo tripe. Red flags: overuse of the words "word" and "page," combined with the rhetorical question formula "What is [X]?" I'm reminded of a line from J. Graham: "What is / the past?" Um, like, history? Come on, people, I've read so many terrible rhetorical questions lately in poems I may never ask a question again. From now on it's all statements for me. The St. Bernard chewed his rotting meat, etc. Oh, and regarding this meta-langauge issue... Company of Moths (M. Palmer's new offering):Notes for Echo Lake::laundry soap:cocaine. Snark that, post-everything theory junkies!


Blogger Snark said...

Do you really mean to tell me that you don't like rhetorical questions? Am I supposed to believe that? Have you considered that you might be full of snark poop? Is there a way your comment could be any more ludicrous? Is it possible to write snark about snark? Is it possible to write snark about snark that writes about snark? Meta-bolize that, Ginger Pennebaker!

4:23 PM, May 01, 2005  
Blogger Ginger Pennebaker said...

Dear Snark,

Notice the qualifying adjective "lame." Certainly not all rhetorical questions fall into the "lame" category. I'm talking about a predominance of vague, mild, pseudo-philosophical questions that on closer look don't go anywhere interesting or original.

A Hypothetical Example:

"What is / the meaning / of a word?"

Even a good poet can ask a lousy question, mask vacuity in faux-profundity. I hereby solicit a call for submissions of lousy rhetorical questions. G. Stein, on the other hand, is hereby nominated for the Queen of the Question Prize.

4:41 PM, May 01, 2005  
Blogger Ginger Pennebaker said...

And in regard to the phrase "snark poop," isn't that a tad redundant? Is not snarking merely a subspecies of defecating, albeit in service of the un-encrapulable? To which Stein's ghost might reply, "Is it not it is and that and tremendous and any gentle hurtful thing..."

4:47 PM, May 01, 2005  
Anonymous Lang Po said...

Your faith in the text is your weakness.

5:04 PM, May 01, 2005  
Anonymous post-lang po meta-jack bruce said...

Faith in the idea that faith in text that critiques some snark that asks a series of rhetorical questions about a post that meta-snarks with the proposition that meta-language and meta-snark are bullshit is total fucking shit, wouldn't you agree?

1:19 AM, May 03, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home