I’ve chosen the case containing Jack Spicer’s mimeographed newsletter “What to do with the Boston Newsletter” and Bob Kaufman’s “Abomunist Manifesto”. As its title suggests, Jack Spicer’s work is a faded list of ways to handle the Boston Newsletter. He proclaims that readers must share or destroy the newsletter; they mustn’t keep it. Considering that many people collect newsletters, these clear instructions seem almost ridiculous. Continuing on the theme of absurdity, Bob Kaufman’s “Abomunist Manifesto” demonstrates how “abomunists” reject conformity and normalcy of all kinds including pain and debts. Together, these works show a clear refusal to accept convention, habit, and commonness.

I was initially drawn to this case for 2 primary reasons. The first being that I grew up in Boston and enjoy literature like “What to do with the Boston Newsletter” that references my beloved city. Additionally, I immediately drew a comparison between the “Abomunist Manifesto” and my favorite book: George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. Bob Kaufman’s list resembles the seven commandments put forth by the pigs in “Animal Farm”, which are based upon the Communist Manifesto. All three possess an odd and somewhat ridiculous sense of confidence and authority.

Furthermore, this case reminds me of our class conversation around line, syntax, spacing, and how poems appear on the page. Jack Spicer’s publication consists of numbered items separated by large spaces. I believe that Jack Spicer chose this format in an effort to represent his opinions as definite instructions, similar to those included in every game box. Readers are accustomed to following numbered steps and therefore Jack Spicer’s numbering provides authority. Similarly, Bob Kaufman demands authority through the use of capitalization in the first section of the “Abomunist Manifesto”. In this section, every letter of every word is capitalized to call attention to its importance. Also, Bob Kaufman writes the capitalized lines in parallel structure so that the content is easily accessible to the ordinary reader. The coupling of these structurally authoritative poems inspires me to organize my final project by unspoken content and themes.

My inspection of “What to do with the Boston Newsletter” and the “Abomunist Manifesto” leads me to question how these publications were initially received. Nowadays these works seem rather absurd, but were they ridiculous in their own time? Were these writers appreciated or shunned? To answer these questions I must garner a greater understanding of the political climate of the late 1950s. By understanding the parties, conflicts, and priorities of the time, I would be able to discern how these works fit into 1950s culture.