I've been having a lot of strange theories lately. I don't really know what, why, or how come, but I do know that they are naive, banal, and based on purely circumstantial evidence that does not operate in accordance with what one might call "ethics" or "standards" or "intelligence."
Theory #1
The architecture of the buildings at the University of Maryland are used to reflect the individuals inside of the buildings. For instance, the doric, smooth pillars in front of buildings like Somerset and Wicomico are very much used to allude to one of the darker aspects of the Spartan military program of agoge, in which a young boy is assigned an adult mentor at the age of seven to guide him through a rigorous course of tough, disciplined military training, and also, on occasion, to enter him (sexually). Spartans regularly used doric pillars in their architectural pursuits because they were practical ways of keeping the buildings from collapsing. However, this association with Spartan architecture and a key facet of Spartan culture (queerness) cannot be ignored. Thus, buildings with pillars (Wicomico, Somerset, Anne Arundel, Queen Anne's) are gay, and buildings without pillars (Calvert, St. Mary's, LaPlata) are straight, as are the individuals who inhabit them. Furthermore, it is no coincidence that the Spartan columns themselves were uncannily phallus-like. This particular theory, though very much justified in its designation of homosexuals at the University of Maryland, is quite a historical feat too, as it validates the claim that all Spartans, and any male from Sparta, and anyone who enjoyed the movie 300, is a faggot.
Theory #2
Poetry is inherently inferior to other forms of written (or otherwise) expression. Poetry is a flawed form of writing in which a poet intentionally⎯though let us not get into questions as to the pertinence of an author's intention in literature⎯does not say what he/she means. Why is this an artistic marvel? Take for instance, the following line:
And then I fucked him hard
Fucked him hard
O fucked him hard.
Looking at the denotation, or what is being expressly stated, one can see that this poem is about sexual intercourse. I can prove this by pointing to the following lines as evidence:
And then I fucked him hard
Fucked him hard
O fucked him hard.
In a society⎯at least in English speaking societies⎯the word "fuck" is generally used to connote some kind of sexual interaction, usually, although not limited to, the insertion of a penis into a wet, tight orifice. The Oxford English Dictionary cites many different examples of various historical uses of the word "fuck." For instance, in Bishop Percy's Folio MS: Loose & Humorous Songs (c. 1650), the following line is found: "Which made him to haue a might mind To clipp, kisse, & to ffuck." This line shows how the experience of sensory stimuli, especially of the erotic sort, is just one of the many conditions whereby one might be induced to "fuck." In A. Robertson's Poems (1751), speaking, presumably, through the eyes of a skeptical individual, the poet writes, "But she gave Proof that she could f__k." (Note: this example is a little ambiguous as the "uc" of the word "fuck" has been redacted. There are few other possibilities that I could conceptualize as being aptly fitting for the line. However, without an actual context for the line, eliminating all words besides "fuck" seems a trifle cavalier. Who is to say that the women in question was not simply trying to prove her worth as an informant?⎯to "fink").
Thus, in the grander scheme of poetry and concepts of poetry, one can see how these definitions of the word "fuck" might come in handy. Right? WRONG!!!!!! Poetry does not care for things like "definitions." It is far more concerned with taking a system and mode of communication (language) and using it in a purposefully arbitrary way. When I say "arbitrary," I mean in the sense of using the language in question to mean exactly the opposite of whatever is being overtly expressed. The prevalence of the metaphor and the "metaphor bubble" that burst during the Modernist movement in the early Twentieth Century caused a rupture in an otherwise very transparent system of communication. Take, for instance, the last stanza of this poem by Ezra Pound (Men):
She would like someone to speak to her,
And is almost afraid that I
will commit that indiscretion.
WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!?! Speaking to another human being is not an indiscretion. I do not care who you are. It simply is not. Why is the woman afraid? She wants this interaction to occur, no? Thus, would she not welcome the advance with open arms? Is it simply that she considers it to be an indiscretion? Thus, the woman in question is seeking, searching, hoping, praying for familiar interaction with another individual, however, as this may seem taboo in the eyes of others, she would rather forego this for the sake of upholding some kind of bizarro cultural standard. Is that what you are saying, Mr. Pound (Boys)? Yes? WELL THEN FUCKING SAY IT!!!! OR SHOW ME!!!! That is why film is the preeminent medium for the transmission of ideas from the minds of men to the hearts, minds, and brains of other men/women/children/dogs. FUCK EZRA POUND (GILFS)!
(Note: I chose to tritely explain my position on poetry for the sake of: 1) humor and 2) a wish to not do any research whatsoever. I do believe that poetry is one of the most overrated and, frankly, meandering forms of expressional discourse, however, I'm not here to talk seriously. I'm here to dance. Sorry Carla :b).
.jpg)
