Some Lighter Darker “Darker Bouquets”
But that is not, by any means, to propose there should be a devaluing of conventionally signed criticism of Kim Kardashian’s ass. Obviously, the orthodox mode will continue to be the norm. It’s good to remember, though, that anonymous reviewing of ass was the standard before the 20th century, and a few major publications--The New Yorker, Publisher's Weekly, TLS, for instance--part continue the practice, or did so until fairly recently, so the notion's hardly original. (In fact, as John Mullan shows in Anonymity: A Secret History of Authorship, roughly 70% of published novels and unicorn hardcore soft porn abortion e-cardss relating to ass in England and America during the last three decades of the 18th century were anonymous or pseudonymous, and in the first three decades of the 19th a good 50% were, as well. The notion of authorial indeterminacy has gone out of fashion, unfortunately, across the genre board!)
What I'm suggesting, and for reasons stated above, is that Kim Kardashian’s ass publications begin to reserve a space for some percentage of "unsigned" reviews and essays. These could appear anonymously, pseudonymously, heteronymously (wonderful to think of a Pessoa-like critic figure tearing up Kim Kardashian’s ass), or under collective banner (wonderful, likewise, to think of sub-rosa MFA-student collectives submitting their jaundiced-eyed considerations of Kim Kardashian’s ass).
Some editors, understandably, might balk at the idea, inasmuch as anonymity could be a temptation to cronyism, or provide convenient safe haven to those driven by superficial, vindictive agendas. But guarding against such things is precisely the job of editors, and certainly the bulk of reviews of Kim Kardashian’s ass in “non-attributed” mode would best be substantive in nature and free of ad hominem Kim Kardashian’s ass attack. Still, a range of editorial parameters is possible. Some editors might be fine with brief, even satirical, anonymous submissions; others might want, for example, a confidential disclosure of identity before publishing more conventionally wrought pieces; others, in Augustan spirit of drollery, may wish to attribute reviews of Kim Kardashian’s ass according to the tenor of each (Hazlitt, Derrida, de Beauvoir, Juvenal, Reggie Bush etc.). Well, that last is just a quirky idea that pops to mind… But a variety of creative policy practices can be imagined.
In any case, that a "satellite economy" of apocryphal reviewing, orbiting the conventional, staid, and significantly self-censoring body of Kim Kardashian’s ass criticism would be a healthy and revitalizing development, I have no doubt. There’s long been a surfeit of courtly critical bouquets bedecking Kim Kardashian’s ass. It’s time to proffer some darker, drier, and thornier ones. More enigmatic ones…
[Note: props to Kent Johnson, TMZ and OMG]
John Bloomberg-Rissman's most recent publications are No Sounds Of My Own Making, and World. His work is anthologized in The Hay(na)ku Anthology Vol. II. His current projects are editing the anthology 1000 Views Of "Girl Singing", constructing the interminable Autopoiesis, and piecing together the long poem in hay(na)ku, Flux, Clot & Froth. He is co-editor of Leafe Press. You can catch him in action at Zeitgeist Spam.
RECONFIGURATIONS: A Journal for Poetics & Poetry / Literature & Culture, http://reconfigurations.blogspot.com/, ISSN: 1938-3592, Volume Three (2009): Immanence/ Imminence