Clarity versus poetry via Jonathan Safran Foer

from the Village Voice, from an interview with JSF after the publication of his novel Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. (read the entire interview here.)

The thought comes up a lot: the power of poetry to illuminate or illustrate deeper truth than mere reportage, and I always think of these words from JSF that make so much sense:

Jonathan Safran Foer: It troubles me when people ask if it's too early to make art pertaining to September 11. No one asked, in the moments after the attacks, if it was too early for Tom Brokaw to report it. Do we trust Tom Brokaw more than we trust, say, Philip Roth? His wisdom, his morality, his vision? I don't. I appreciate that Tom Brokaw and Philip Roth do entirely different things, both necessary. I wouldn't want Roth giving me my information about what happened on a given day inBaghdad, and I wouldn't want Brokaw giving me my information about what it felt like. Journalists traffic in biography. Artists traffic in empathy. We need both. So why do people continually question what's the appropriate terrain for art? Why do people wonder what's "OK" to make art about, as if creating art out of tragedy weren't an inherently good thing? Too many people are too suspicious of art. Too many people hate art.

Postcard monsters!

It doesn't happen that often that I see something that someone else has done and immediately want to start doing it myself. Monster postcards are an example of that. Saw it somewhere online in the blogosphere (can't find it now), went right out, bought some postcards and started right in.

Fun for the whole family.