nika on writing ness

via nika fb post:

Some wonderful people collected my texts about the library project and published them: carefully, with pictures and links. I always forget to do this and I am so grateful to them for their concern!

The next part of the project describing social currencies, beads, and how they are related to books and the open library will be released soon.

I reread my text about the library project and thought it was too practical and even boring. There is too little poetry in it.

There is a famous text, “Jellyfish’s laughter.” It is described that women write bodily, poetically, and even chaotic.

But men are thoughtful and structured.

We live in a man’s world and we are forced to write in a manly manner. And we need to defend our primitive female letter.

I thought that it might be worth adding the characteristics of the “female letter”?

In fact, the poets are often men. Especially in academics. Some academic will come up with a cunning unbearable term, no worse than Krucheny or Hlebnikov. He will write 100 books each 1000 pages. Mostly about understanding his theory correctly. To do this, he will include in his 100 books 1000 links to other male authors to prove to all mankind that his theory (for example: qualifications of ancient communities) not only legitimately fits into the existing world picture, but complements, changes and develops it.

What is not poetry?

The question of what to do with this knowledge is inappropriate to ask readers. And the reality is most likely that another 1000 people will spend their lives in a maze of cross-links.

Most women just won’t spend their lives on this kind of shit: they have children, parents, drinking husbands and a collapsed playground near the house that needs fixing.

Am I to the point why not legitimize texts that describe practice rather than theory? Maybe we should invent some new canon?

and via tweet [https://x.com/nikadubrovsky/status/2035667482040533044?s=20]:

Some wonderful people collected my texts about the @Graeber_social library project and published them — neatly, with pictures and links. I always forget to do this myself and I’m so grateful for the care!

The next part of the project is coming soon: about social currencies, beads, and how they connect to books and the open library.

Now, when I reread my text about the library project, I thought: oh, isn’t it a bit too practical, even kind of dull? Where’s all the poetry that, according to The Laugh of the Medusa, is the hallmark of a truly feminist text?

Which got me thinking — maybe it’s worth expanding the definition of “feminine writing”?

Because honestly, poets are often men. Especially academics. Some academic invents a clever, unpronounceable term (simuler to dada, Kruchenykh or Khlebnikov.) Then writes 100 books, each 1000 pages long, mostly about how to correctly understand his own theory. For this purpose he includes 1000 links to other male authors, to prove to all of humanity that his theory (say: the typology of ancient communities) not only fits neatly into the existing picture of the world, but expands, transforms, and advances it.

Poetry, no?

Asking what readers are supposed to do with this knowledge is considered rude. The reality is probably that another 1000 people will spend their lives lost in a maze of cross-references.

Most women simply won’t waste their lives on that kind of nonsense. They’ve got kids, parents, and a broken playground outside their building that needs fixing.

Which is all to say: why not legitimize texts that describe practicalities — texts that look more like a housewife’s notes on how to do home renovations, organize holidays for the entire school, and distribute food in the local farming cooperative?