"To write with no self is irresponsible. To write with only self is irrelevant." Rachel Zucker

And what would poetry be if people only wrote “harmless” poems? Should we invent a litmus test to measure hurtfulness and put a “no one was harmed in the making of these poems” sticker on qualifying books? When I imagine a kind of poetry that tries not to hurt anyone I can only imagine a poetry so obscure, coy, and abstract as to be unintelligible. I can’t think of a poem I love that would qualify. Here is Foucault: Etymologically, “parrhesiazesthai” means “to say everything”—from “pan” (everything) and “rhema” (that which is said). The one who uses parrhesia, the parrhesiastes, is someone who says everything he has in mind: he does not hide anything, but opens his heart and mind completely to other people through his discourse. In parrhesia, the speaker is supposed to give a complete and exact account of what he has in mind so that the audience is able to comprehend exactly what the speaker thinks. . . .In parrhesia, the speaker makes it manifestly clear and obvious that what he says…