Bram replied to my moan that Tempest ain't subtle,
And I accept many points in his rebuttal.
He notes that her intention is to make people aware
That the worship of capital is a dangerous snare
And reading of theory is all very well
But fails to address the political hell
Engineered by the state and the media's spell.
By problem is not that she speaks of such things
Or the accent she uses or the way that she sings.
I agree that there's value in the ideas she teaches
Even if I don't like the way that she preaches.
I mean, I don't like it, it can't work for me
(My critique of her flow is hypocrisy)
But there are better examples of 'street' poetry.
You're right that the mainstream excludes those voices
Who suggest there is something past capitalist choices.
But I can't get beyond what I think is simplistic
The manner and poise of a old fashioned mystic
My anarchic distrust of rhetorical tropes
And onto an artist the placing of hopes
Makes activist groups complacent dopes.
The purpose of art might be to start the debate
And I dislike myself when I provide the hate
Of an artist who's working to clarify acts
Which dominant power wants accepted as facts.
I do take your point that her words might touch those
Who aren't already aware of the resistant prose
Of Chomsky or Pilger - that's bang on the nose.
But I'm asking for more, and a thoughtful critique
Are her complaints just another defeat.
However important her critique may be
Does she just talk to those who already agree?
Is art a steam valve to keep status quos stable?
Do I ever protest as well as I'm able?
But I'd rather hear tracks from the Black Lantern Label.