The Effete Fascist
by Michael R. Burch
Because I’ve been an editor and publisher of poetry for over a decade now (I
can no longer remember exactly when I started, but I believe it was sometime
between 1998 and 2000), I have heard every reason (and excuse) in the book for
contemporary poetry having lost its readership.
By far the most common explanation offered by poets is, in a single word,
"readers." Just as Yahweh/Jehovah condemned Adam for everything that went wrong
with his creation, the Universe, so the lordly Poet blames the reader for
everything that goes wrong with his creation, Verse.
The result has been two infernal religions. Once Yahweh/Jehovah spoke (or,
more accurately, once the Levite scribes who pretended to be "God" spoke, while
constantly betraying their absolute ignorance about such things as the order of
creation, the shape of the earth, its position in the solar system, and such
rudimentary things as whether hares chew the cud or insects have four legs), it
was all downhill for Adam and his descedents. According to the Bible, God created
a sublime Paradise and man ruined it. Similarly, once the Poet spoke, announcing
his Godhood and the sublimity of his Art, readers were in deep doo-doo (or at
least according to the Poet).
But of course the "hell" of Christianity is entirely the creation of the
infernal imaginations of its hellions, who only make themselves and their
children miserable by trying to figure out ways to squirm out of the
straightjackets they assigned (emphasis on "ass") themselves: "How, oh how, for the love of Jesus
Christ and in God’s name, can we mange to condemn all the homosexuals and
prostitutes to hell, and yet escape it themselves, when we're as sex-saturated
as everyone else?" The result is hypocrisy so outrageous it would be comical, if
only children weren’t being abused emotionally, psychologically and spiritually,
at every turn. Can anything be more laughable than imagining a just God sending
Gandhi and the Dalai Lama to an "eternal hell" while Pat Robertson and Jimmy
Swaggart get gold stars?
But poets have created a religion almost as hellish, and equally chaotic.
The religion of the modern Poet goes something like this: "Readers are
evil, ignorant louts who deserve only my loathing. Only I, the almighty Poet,
through the sublimity of my Art, am worthy of the highest
heaven. Now let me sit and sulk because no one bothers to read my poems.
Yahweh/Jehovah has exactly the same problem. As much as he wants to damn
every human being to an eternal hell, they’re really all about the
same (the priests and pastors are usually the worst of the lot, and they’re the
ones creating the "divine plan," which only makes God's problems more comical,
in Keystone Kops way) . . . so what’s a god to do? He can’t live with
believers, but he’s useless without them.
So, too, Poets (it seems to me) can’t live with readers, yet are useless
Is there any possible escape from the existential dilemma? Well, perhaps. Yahweh/Jehovah
and his "helpers" (i.e., the witchdoctors who gave us Judaism and Christianity)
might stop condemning human beings to an eternal hell, without having a clue as
to how they might be "saved," and quit praising God to the skies, since he's
done little or nothing praiseworthy since the Big Bang. Similarly, poets might admit the lowercase "p"
suits them better than the lordly capital "P," and come down from their high
And there’s a particular poet I’d like to see repent, confess and
change his stripes: the Effete Fascist. You can find him in any on-line poetry
forum. He's the one whose "critiques" invariably drip venom. Like every fascist, he looks for a group
that will accept him; once accepted, he immediately wheels around and looks for someone
"inferior" he can despise and attack, with the group’s consent. But he and his
cohorts are too cowardly to do much more than lurk in shadows and hiss
invectives from a safe distance. He’s a viper, but on the effete side. So he is
singularly unattractive. Make that repulsive.
His repulsive behavior is often sanctioned, if not applauded, by poetic
communities where "hard-nosed" critiques are considered greater inventions than
sliced bread (not that bleached, sliced bread provides much more than empty
calories). But there is a tremendous difference between an honest critique that
is meant to help a poet, and a mean-spirited critique that is meant to make the
critiquer look "superior" at the poet's expense.
Poets are supposed to be creators. Creation is a generous act. A good poem is
a grace. Poets who are able to grace the world with good poems don’t need to
denigrate other poets, or readers. Poets who are confident in their abilities,
and who honestly like their own poems, can afford to be secure in their work, even if no
one else seems to like it. I wrote poems for years, and considered some of them
good poems, when almost none of them were being published by "editors in the
know." While I’ll admit this didn’t make me especially happy, I liked the
results of my writing enough to keep writing and improving my skills. Just recently I was
published for the 777th time, which made me feel as if I’d hit some
sort of jackpot. In the end, it seems other people did like my poems, at least
enough to publish them. The lean years taught me to prize every reader gracious
enough to take the time to read my work, so it pains me to see poets who speak
so denigratingly of readers.
Many people are not fans of God, if he exists, because the world he created is
nowhere near as good as advertised by religion. Many readers are not fans of
poets, because their work is not as sublime as they imagine. When I was a young
boy, I read the best poems of poets like Housman, Yeats, Frost, Blake, Eliot,
Dylan Thomas, Wallace Stevens and Hart Crane with great pleasure and a high
degree of comprehension. It doesn't take an advanced degree for someone to enjoy
good poetry. Many teenagers read and enjoy good poetry, as I did. I used to read
the poetry in my English textbooks voluntarily, skipping over the prose sections
to find the next poem.
The Effete Fascist doesn't want to hear this, and many other poets don't want to
hear it either, because it is the death of their religion. If teenagers can read
the best poems of all time, and understand them, and enjoy them, without having
a literary theory in their brains . . . well, then, perhaps they're just wise
enough to like the poems of the all-time great poets better than the poems of
lesser poets. Does that make them idiots or cretins?
I went through a number of lean years as a poet with few readers other than
myself, but I chose to have a generous attitude
toward poetry, toward readers and toward other poets. If people like my poems,
that’s wonderful. If I like my poems more than other people do, that’s not the
end of the world. But in either case, nothing good will come out of me being an
effete snob and looking down my nose at other people because they don’t bow down
to me, or praise me, or worship me.
Now if only Yahweh/Jehovah and Jesus would stop sending people to hell for
not bowing down to them, worshiping them and praising them . . .