ReFuturist Manifesto

I think normally I'm inclined to like more experimental/whacky stuff but I think I'll have to draw the line here. Even if you're trading on the modernist axiom of the poem "communicating before being understood", I'd have to tell you that what this poem communicates to me is that the poet is attempting to wrench profundity from the jaws of his chosen art form by deliberately inflicting violence upon it, tormenting it until it coughs up his desired message before collapsing in on itself.

Perhaps this sort of thing is cathartic for the writer, and judging by the upvotes you've gotten here, many on this subreddit share in your catharsis, but I don't believe at all that it has much value as poetry. It just comes across as insincere to me--I don't know why I should care very much about this poem when it's clear the poet hated it from the moment he began it, a hate which is readily evident in the violence he's forced it to endure. And what's worse, the obscurity of the title is deliberate bait for the reader to attempt a deep reading of this poem, a dare for them to just try and find a speck of sincerity in a poem that means nothing, and mocks itself for meaning nothing, and mocks the reader for believing it might mean something.

I don't think just because this poem induces physical repulsion that it has any sort of great inherent aesthetic value. In fact, I think it means the opposite.

A FIRE AN THE MIND WANT EM ERE WANT PAPER BURN WANT ILL URN URN IME SHE URN APE I U AX HOLD.

Was hoping it meant something.

i

     URNed it

  Can't get into this.

and viol

       (ets |
        as|
        ence)

  Really like this bit though.

I'm not usually one for unusual formatting but I think this poem utilises it really, really well.

FIRE appears on its own, all capitals, and signals the harsh and intrusive nature of this power, before the words literally slink into the back of the persona's mind. WANT always being capitalised is another great little touch - it really illustrates how violently ingrained these desires are.

pAPEr is genius; a touch of the long, unrecognisable past, right before the poem starts to move onto matters of the future.

URNed is my least favourite part of the poem. A pun? It almost seems immature in a work like this.

The 'viol' section is in my opinion the strongest little formatting trick. As a reader I first saw 'violets as violence', a strong metaphor in itself; but hidden in the middle, just as melodic and understated as its physical counterpart, is the beautiful appearance of 'violas'. I really liked this - I must have smiled when I noticed that.

AX continues the violent imagery and the last 'stanza' links the infamous image of book burnings with a clever bit of synecdoche; syntax can be seen as the books in these burning libraries, typically seen as the fountain of knowledge, the rules of progression, and here it is presented quite literally (through lack of) as a barrier to thought and development.
Finally the poem slinks back to the walls of left justification, away from the turbulence of the middle of the page, echoing the beginning.

Probably pretty clear from the above but I really enjoyed this poem, thought it was very clever and it's use of unconventional formatting was perfectly justified. Still trying to get over that speed bump that is 'URNed', though. I'd love to know what your reasoning for that line is. In my opinion the whole appearance of URNs and URNed is a bit contrived, simply a not-quite-fully-realised thought about the last three letters of burn; if there is a deeper meaning for this, let me know! I'd love to eat my words about this, those lines just didn't give me the greatest impression.

This whole poem is out of order! ;)

Man, what's frustrating about this piece for me is how it almost does something special (that isn't insulting futurism). If you took "i URNed it" and "is tIme to make way for the future" you'd have something that very nearly embodies that digital brand of hedonism that pushes past the Huxleys and Orwells and shows (i'm gonna use this term for the parts it sums, not really to engage with the aesthetic) cyber-punk anxiety and glut of complexity. I feel like a lot of what was done in the piece is striking and powerful, but to attached to futurism seems wrong.

Things from the burning libraries clanging (love this line, wholly and unironically), to that "so/me/th/in/g" being so obviously linked to cummings "loneliness"

 (sadness wont
   do only joy
       and sex
       and viol
              (ets|
               as|
               ence)

this shows that schizophrenic mindset dmslyr was trying to do in his pieces perfectly. Like I said I almost love this poem, but the post-post-ironing feels misdirected to me. I think the piece unltimately fails at what you said it was supposed to for me, but maybe that reflects on me, I dunno.