“A stridskrift against violence and racism”
“Sven Anders Johansson about Felicia Mulinaris debutdiktsamling”
“It starts, of course, so good:”
“, ”when we come out u002F out of our mothers u002F they understand that we are similar u002F their losses””
“The first diktraderna in Felicia Mulinaris debut, what It cannot be wiped out give birth until it hurt, losing, victorious ”we” which then populate the whole book. It is refreshing to see a book that abandons samtidslitteraturens I-centering of something more collective.”
“But to establish a we also have their downsides. For at least in Mulinaris bottling requires viet that there is a ”judgment” on the opposite side. On almost every page established this limit: vis-à-vis ”the white”, ”lasermännen”, ”soc and the Swedish girls”, but usually only the ”swedes”. It is quite rough.”
“That this reactive-identifying makes me a little tired is probably in order. Maybe it is purely of that which is objective: it is they who are included in the ”viet” the book speaks to. I belong to, I guess, ”the swedes”.”
“nFast is not a stated conclusion? Jo. So I’m trying to sharpen my reading: the book of wrath is so clearly a symptom of the system that segregate, subordinates, rasifierar and so on.”
“Or, as it is formulated in two interesting lines: ”I never wanted to hate white men u002F but this hat was my only gills”. One can thus breathe with hatred help? It is what rasisterna on the Flashback also makes?”
“In any case, it is of course good if it can be extracted poetry out of the predicament, but there is a dilemma in this which is reminiscent of arbetarlitteraturens: to arbetarlitteraturen would occur, workers need to start writing, and thus leave the work which gave rise to the arbetaridentiteten.”
“On almost every page established this limit: towards ’the white’”
“And to write a collection of poems on subsumption, one must, in the same way, to enter into something else. (Is there anything less subordinate than Bonniers?) So what is it really for the ”we” that is talking, complaining, love, and hate in these poems?”
“nSom you hear, this is a book where it is difficult to distinguish the aesthetic assessment from a political. The pictures and the interconnections are charged, but at the same time almost a little waited: demonstrations and a dance floor, colic and fascism, curly hair and pale bodies. It is hated and mourned.”
“Is it something new, something unexpected out of this? I can’t really see it. Certainly, there is a power in the hatred, but it is something static and nostalgic over the whole set-up. It is as if the poems most want to define the boundaries of a memory, collect it, that is the ”our” in order to be able to define themselves.”
“”Bunkaslagsmål. Whose friend is it who is in the hospital.”
“Bunkaslagsmål. Who are treading in the blodpölen outside Glassfabriken.”
“Bunkaslagsmål. Whose mothers are beginning to have knives in your purse.”
“Bunkaslagsmål. Whose newspapers write.””
“Whose”? Well, quite many, I think. To take the monopoly on difficult experiences is a questionable strategy. Because the poem makes the affiliation to its the whole of the case will be the pep talk for the uninitiated.”
“nMen so will a diktsvit where each page begins with the invitation ”tell me about the organization”. Here it is neither ”we” or ”judgment” or lived through injustices, is the key.”
“rather than looking for the poem for something open, something coming. What ”organization” are is unclear – a device for political change? Or the poem’s own organization? Something that transcends the individuality and the solidified identities. If the choice is between the gills and the organisation I hope to Mulinari affirms the latter.”
“” It can’t be wiped out.”
“Albert Bonniers förlag”
