i prefer the term ‘fusing’ over ‘using’ because bervin utilizes iconic text; hence the macro of canonic poetry with the micro of the contemporary poetry. (note: i dont mean to make one seem larger over the other, i prefer to think of both terms inhabiting a similar space but there relative size based on perspective. in this case, bervin shifts here text to the forefront and makes shakespeare’s text the micro.)

based on the fact that bervin goes to the iconic, i believe there is opportunity to honor and/or erase. if she was just using last week’s headline, maybe not so much.

i don’t know so much about ‘fusing’ together, or i don’t know if that’s how i’d describe what i think she has done. it seems more to me like “using” shakespeare as raw material from which to create a poem, like we would with google search results and other found texts, though i know you are addressing my ‘erasure’ question here. so ultimately i don’t think using a text as found text is either honoring or erasing it.

either way, i would say that she has brought herself into the text–a bold move, for sure–and forged a poem that honors the classic while bringing in the speaker’s contemporary voice. in that, by fusing the macro and the micro, i believe she has created a successful poem.

my question still stands: did she have to use 150 one sided pages to get to that poem? i guess the fact that this reader is still asking that question can qualify as another marker of a successful poem.