Terror knows no bounds, is an attempt at boundless contempt for society's limits. It appeals, therefore, to those who believe that limits are wrong, or currently are of the wrong shape - paradoxically, many who enact terror desire more, not less, limit. Yet they work in chaos who desire a new order. Mumbai, a great city of the world, is currently facing a new kind of freewheeling madness and cruelty that makes artistic depictions of the urban same, in films (like the recent Batman) jejeune and false. What is being expressed in these terrifying acts is that free agents of ruthless determination can move at will through serious cities, nearly unhindered - yet ultimately, hindered. That battles are still raging, more than 24 hours after the initial attacks, is alarming. Anarchy, it now appears, can appear anywhere, in even the midst of great civilisations, and establish small failed states. The 21st century is falling apart. Obama can only do so much, and most of the world seems to be tearing itself to bits.
When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart? A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional. Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were. For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ? Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets. But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ? How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular. John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
Comments
Your most important prediction concerning how the mass of humanity think and would react in the American election, was 100% wrong, as you stated that though it pained you to think the worst, you firmly believed McCain would triumph. And after the event, you removed the post predicting in a resigned world weary tenor, this failed prophecy, thus leaving no record of it.
As for your predictions about terrorism, in Mumbai and elsewhere, while I agree with you that it is serious, and that we are in a watershed decade/time/era-or/whatever-else-it-might-be-called, I don't think that this means that we are "tearing ourselves to bits." Apocalyptic? Yes. Apocalypse? No. The decline of a civilization à la Rome? Yes. Bin Laden will ultimately be depicted as something along the lines of Attila, but more effective. But again, he won't be the ruler. There will be endless conflicts between nations, city-states, districts, etc. ad nauseum, just like in the dark-ages. Have you seen the movie, The Moneymakers? Have your read your Hobsbaum? Ahem. I need not say more.
Thanks for posting