(No more poems, no more lyrics…Propose somehow a work, the work, a work, the work, a work otherhow of enormous dailiness and crossing…Poems “like” essays: situated, breathless, passionate, multiple, critical. A work of entering into the social force of language, the daily work done everywhere with the language, the little flyer fallen to the ground, the corner of a comic, a murder, burning cars, the pouring of realization like a squall green amber squall rain…). (DuPlessis 147)((DuPlessis, Rachel Blau. “Otherhow.” The Pink Guitar. New York: Routledge, 1990. 140–156. Print.))
Call them liminal works. Call them genrequeer, mash-ups, remixes, found texts. Label these works as bending, breaking, queering genre and expectations. Names define, create expectations, recognize similarities and, intentionally or not, draw boundaries that create exclusions as a byproduct of inclusions. The temptation to categorize these works in order to better understand how they resist and alter categorization is strong.
The underlying belief is that these works are related to each other in so much as they participate in “a whole field of experimentation with language, languages, poetics, which help the mind in its push against its own elastic limits, when it puts these limits under examination, under stress, discovering in that ongoing process its own open-ended, unstable definition” (Adnan 34)((Adnan, Etel. In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country. City Lights Publishers, 2005. Print.)).
It is in this “unstable definition” that “hybrid literature potentially creates an experience more real than realism, performing regions of emotional experience and intensities of expression that lie beyond the grasp of any known genre” (Hume n.p)((Hume, Christine. “Some Capacities and Fallacies of Literary Hybridity: a Card Game.” Poets.Org The Academy of Poets. Web. 31 July 2012.)). These works resist, repurpose, remix expectations.