"To write with no self is irresponsible. To write with only self is irrelevant." Rachel Zucker
And what would poetry be if people only wrote “harmless” poems? Should we invent a litmus test to measure hurtfulness and put a “no one was harmed in the making of these poems” sticker on qualifying books? When I imagine a kind of poetry that tries not to hurt anyone I can only imagine a poetry so obscure, coy, and abstract as to be unintelligible. I can’t think of a poem I love that would qualify.
Here is Foucault: Etymologically, “parrhesiazesthai” means “to say everything”—from “pan” (everything) and “rhema” (that which is said). The one who uses parrhesia, the parrhesiastes, is someone who says everything he has in mind: he does not hide anything, but opens his heart and mind completely to other people through his discourse. In parrhesia, the speaker is supposed to give a complete and exact account of what he has in mind so that the audience is able to comprehend exactly what the speaker thinks. . . .In parrhesia, the speaker makes it manifestly clear and obvious that what he says is his own opinion. And he does this by avoiding any kind of rhetorical form which would veil what he thinks. Instead, the parrhesiastes uses the most direct words and forms of expression he can find.
Writing Wrongs by Rachel Zucker
Hat Tip Sabrina Orah Mark