The big question raised by yesterday’s journal is just who it is that she is trying to manipulate?
The poem she posted is so specific in its descriptions of oral sex that she seems to have voided her ability to make it apply to more than one person – as she seems to have done in some of her prior poems.
The feeling I have gotten from the beginning of this sordid affair was that she constantly tries to juggle more than one person at a time, and somehow manages to come across as credible.
Since she uses social media as a more direct way to manipulate whatever her current subject is – via photos or provocative posts, even sometimes making bold statements during our meetings, it is part of the reason I think she tries to keep unwanted guests away from her Facebook page, while at the same time, she does her best to keep the page open as honey designed to attract someone she is interested in. This is a crazy balancing act.
Her poetry is different.
Since she knows more than one of her followers reads them, she sometimes seems to craft them in such a way that there might be a line or two aimed at someone else in them, if only to keep their interest – such as some poems last fall that included one or two lines that appeared aimed at me, when the rest of those poems were aimed elsewhere.
I include in this group of followers those who she might call stalkers, which she seems determined to retain, even when she complains otherwise.
I got the impression early on that she liked to provoke her stalkers, leading them on with a suggestive word or two. In some cases, she seemed to edit what was clearly an ongoing conversation so as to make it look like their response was some kind of manic diatribe, not caused by anything she did. And yet use what they sent her as evidence against them.
But she is clever enough to be able to provoke them in a way that she can later deny culpability.
She showed me some of the texts her Brooklyn stalker sent, and it was clear even with the editing that is was part of an ongoing conversation, leaving out important details such as what exactly she said to him.
But her poetry changed since the beginning of the year, and seemed to become more focused, sticking to particular subjects without the interjection of snide remarks aimed at someone else.
This is not to say she ceased to manipulate but appears to have a specific purpose with specific individuals, and this suggests that there may well be truth in some of what she expresses, rather than rank attempts to manipulate people.
I actually believe her love poems from earlier this year were legitimately written, just as those poems of outrage she posted recently (some of which may be aimed at me.)
Her abilities are amazing, but so are her flaws, and I get the sense that she is less worldly at times than she would like to imply and very much naïve, falling for other people’s bullshit when she ought to know better.
I get the impression that she reads into situations things that are sometimes not how she perceives them, but rather how she wants to perceive them.
This is the case with her chef turned stalker, who she admits she misread as competent (as well as her meal ticket to success), and, of course, the ever-capable bullshit artist, RR, who is notorious.
I get the impression that she also reads things into my poems I never meant, often using these mis-readings to support her assumptions about me.
I also get the feeling that she is constantly testing people who profess to love her, and at times deliberately seeks to shock them as she often shocked me early on.
So, in reading her latest poem (over and over), I am caught up with the question as to whether she is being provocative, deliberately shocking – such as she sometimes was during our meetings at the office, or naïve, falling for someone else with a good line until that romance sputters out.
The poem is too intense to ignore, whether its manipulation or provocation, or self-delusion, or perhaps even love.
Can a poet who is clearly as brilliant as she is, allow herself to fall into a classic cliché when describing her reaction to his ability at lovemaking?
And why would she not simply tell him all this via phone or text, rather than lay it out for public consumption, exposing her inner most feelings to all of us voyeurs.
Is it possible that in posting it, she is sending another kind of message to the rest of us, that we can’t possibly measure up to what this man does?
And what about him? Will he recognize her poem as a classic cliché or accept it on face value, letting him stroke his ego as well as other parts of his anatomy?
If it is manipulation, if she is manipulating him for some reason, what does she propose to gain? Is he someone in a position of power capable of granting her wishes?
Is this part of some trickling up on her part, stroking him the way she sometimes did with me and our former temporary boss when she played club reporter and needed us as mentors.
If so, then this poem goes far beyond being a cub, and lays it all out for the world to see, a powerful sexual encounter capable of making those left out jealous, if that was here intention or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment