During the two weeks I was out in California, 1,968 people checked the blog. I take that as some register of the number of individuals (as distinct from either “visits” or “hits”) who drop by the site.

 

I do want to give a special shout out to the people who have thus far responded to my inquiry as to a working definition of flarf:

 

• Dan Bouchard
• Louis Cabri
• Don Cheney
• Drew Gardner
• Michael Helsem
• Rodney Koeneke
• Bill Luoma
• K. Silem Mohammad
• Chris Sullivan
• Gary Sullivan
• Gerard Van de Luen

 

Responses added up to 13 pages, single spaced. You can still reply – it’s not like there’s a deadline: rsillima@yahoo.com.

 

I should note that I’m gathering this with an idea of putting together something, maybe a talk, on the nature of meaning, somewhere down the line. The replies I’ve received to date raise a series of further questions, all interesting – at least to me:

 

M     Does flarf have a gender orientation?

M     What is the relationship between flarf and subpoetics?

M     Does flarf exist as a public phenomenon or as a coterie discourse? Could it exist the other way around?

M     Is it flarf without Google?