'EC' = Sardonic request.

[Deleted]

Hello Justasking,

Actually, a question on the title of your analysis: "EC: A Sardonic Request" or “A Satirical Analysis of a Satyr”? 

Quite an intriguing analysis that spurs questions. Would the EAR’s personality profile need re-evaluation or would your analysis of the EAR’s personality warrant reappraisal? I feel that often we fall prey to socially rendered stereotypes of criminals as lesser intelligent beings that we forget that they may defy them in their own individually resourceful ways. Could not the “sociological” and “socially conscious” outlook affiliated with the poet actually belong to the interpreter of the poem? Where does the line between the poet’s own meaning and the interpreter’s own meaning assigned to the poet end and begin? I wonder because interpretations are often projected onto the poet and poem when they may not have been the originally intended meanings.

When you observe that “the author assumes the role of the 'East Area Rapist' (whether he was the actual author or not, this interpretation still stands), to make a sardonic point about the whole picture,” is it the actual author who is satirical or is it the interpreter of the poem who designates a chaffing voice to the author? These kinds of questions are important in poetic understanding as they help us separate the wheat, interpretations that fit with the author’s message, from the chaff, interpretations that distort the author’s actual message.

For example, when I see your comment that the initial section of the poem “isn’t that interesting really,” I wonder how much this disinterest filters into your analysis of that section and separates it from the author’s intended meaning. I find the first part as all parts of the poem to be gripping with emotions from the poet. That initial section actually contains the themes of the “sociological” and “socially conscious” view referred to by you, births and deaths, individual and society, values and worth, etc. I am having a difficult time understanding how these themes are unprepossessing since they are the subjects of extensive and intensive academic debate, such as individual births and deaths impacted by social class and economic status, births and deaths and standard of living, redefinitions of values and worth involving material possessions and mental, psychological and emotional wellness, and more. Is barely escaping death “just some usual existential stuff?” Is it just a “usual” experience for a mother and a family to lose their child or for the child to fight to live? Is it just a normal, forgettable occurrence, devoid of emotion? Is it even common with healthcare facilities and across social classes? I ask because the first verse of the poem raises a lot of these kinds of stirring questions.

On the voice of the poem, was there really no voice after the first stanza? I see first person voice in active form with the verse “Choosing values” and third person with “Oneself must seek satisfaction,” “The selected route,” etc.

Let us take a look at the grief-provoking verses in the context of the surrounding verses so they can be clearly understood. Starting with the previous verses, “Accepting some work to perform, At fixed pay, but promise for more, Is a recognized social norm.” In these verses, the poet has presented society’s definition of and the socially accepted work situation. See the words, “Accepting,” “perform” and “fixed pay.” From his choice of words, the poet is showing the impotent role of the individual, as referred to by “accepting” and “perform” in opposition to the power of the employer who can dictate the amount of pay as indicated by “fixed pay” and “promise for more.” It is that powerless role of the individual in subjecting to commands and the powerful role of the employer in dictating them that the poet designates as the “recognized social norm.” The poet is telling us that society has raised an accepted standard of working where there is a power difference between the employer, who has the authority to determine the working situation, and the employee, who is impotent and under the authority of the employer’s induced working situation. Now studying the grief-provoking verses, “Achieving while others lifting, Should be cause for deserving fame,” we can understand the poet’s meaning of it together with the meaning of the previous verses. The word “lifting” in the thirteenth verse is allied with “accepting some work” and “perform” from verse nine because it is associated with doing the brunt of labor and shouldering responsibilities. It is this lifting, with “accepting some work to perform” and at “fixed pay, with promise for more,” that individuals comply with as commanded by their employers that is the accepted social standard and norm. Society has approved of lifting and earning a living through hard work as the work standard, which is known as the “American Dream.” The poet is rebelling against this societal standard when he raises “Achieving while others lifting,” or reaping success without sowing it, as the standard that should be worthy of “fame” or recognition. I elaborate on the normative judgment of the poet and the leisure verse in the thread on the emotions of “Excitement’s Crave.” I wonder whether it is our “preconceived notions” that prevent us from understanding the poet’s intended meaning or our dismissal of taking into consideration the surrounding verses and the whole composite of the poem in shedding light on the poet’s meaning of particular verses.

Only two options for interpreting the title, “Excitement’s Crave!” I am devastated as I had felt they were manifold. For example, “Excitement’s Crave” as a representation of the poet’s dual emotions, opposing sense of self and excitement’s crave representing an intensified form of excitement or a passion, representing life. Water’s thirst would be evaporation, symbolic of death.

The words “Mafia lord” are not that common to the movies. The movies refer to the authority in the Mafia as “the boss.” The words “Mafia lord” in the verse is suggestive of a conventional gender relationship where the man is the authority of the home, much as the feudal lords were of their estates, and the wife is subject to his authority. It implies that the poet may have actually known a person who was of Italian background and the head of his household. Even more, at the time of the release of the poem, only the Italian family and EAR knew that the Italian family had been attacked, indicating that they had been personally acquainted.

The file reminds of the type of file kept on children with behavioral, psychological and social problems. It could be pointing to the history of the EAR’s behavioral, psychological and social complications.

Despite all the questions and obfuscations raised from your analysis claiming another (non-EAR) author of "Excitement's Crave," you actually reeled in the reason that the poem could have been authored by EAR at the end of your analysis: “Alternating between transgression and chastisement”; The dichotomy of chaos and control, rebellion and conformity and self-augmentation and self-diminishment that we understand to be in the individual known as East Area Rapist.

[justasking]

Apr 12, 2018 10:58:23 GMT @mysterystory said:

Hello Justasking,

Actually, a question on the title of your analysis: "EC: A Sardonic Request" or “A Satirical Analysis of a Satyr”? 

Quite an intriguing analysis that spurs questions. Would the EAR’s personality profile need re-evaluation or would your analysis of the EAR’s personality warrant reappraisal? I feel that often we fall prey to socially rendered stereotypes of criminals as lesser intelligent beings that we forget that they may defy them in their own individually resourceful ways. Could not the “sociological” and “socially conscious” outlook affiliated with the poet actually belong to the interpreter of the poem? Where does the line between the poet’s own meaning and the interpreter’s own meaning assigned to the poet end and begin? I wonder because interpretations are often projected onto the poet and poem when they may not have been the originally intended meanings.

When you observe that “the author assumes the role of the 'East Area Rapist' (whether he was the actual author or not, this interpretation still stands), to make a sardonic point about the whole picture,” is it the actual author who is satirical or is it the interpreter of the poem who designates a chaffing voice to the author? These kinds of questions are important in poetic understanding as they help us separate the wheat, interpretations that fit with the author’s message, from the chaff, interpretations that distort the author’s actual message.

For example, when I see your comment that the initial section of the poem “isn’t that interesting really,” I wonder how much this disinterest filters into your analysis of that section and separates it from the author’s intended meaning. I find the first part as all parts of the poem to be gripping with emotions from the poet. That initial section actually contains the themes of the “sociological” and “socially conscious” view referred to by you, births and deaths, individual and society, values and worth, etc. I am having a difficult time understanding how these themes are unprepossessing since they are the subjects of extensive and intensive academic debate, such as individual births and deaths impacted by social class and economic status, births and deaths and standard of living, redefinitions of values and worth involving material possessions and mental, psychological and emotional wellness, and more. Is barely escaping death “just some usual existential stuff?” Is it just a “usual” experience for a mother and a family to lose their child or for the child to fight to live? Is it just a normal, forgettable occurrence, devoid of emotion? Is it even common with healthcare facilities and across social classes? I ask because the first verse of the poem raises a lot of these kinds of stirring questions.

On the voice of the poem, was there really no voice after the first stanza? I see first person voice in active form with the verse “Choosing values” and third person with “Oneself must seek satisfaction,” “The selected route,” etc.

Let us take a look at the grief-provoking verses in the context of the surrounding verses so they can be clearly understood. Starting with the previous verses, “Accepting some work to perform, At fixed pay, but promise for more, Is a recognized social norm.” In these verses, the poet has presented society’s definition of and the socially accepted work situation. See the words, “Accepting,” “perform” and “fixed pay.” From his choice of words, the poet is showing the impotent role of the individual, as referred to by “accepting” and “perform” in opposition to the power of the employer who can dictate the amount of pay as indicated by “fixed pay” and “promise for more.” It is that powerless role of the individual in subjecting to commands and the powerful role of the employer in dictating them that the poet designates as the “recognized social norm.” The poet is telling us that society has raised an accepted standard of working where there is a power difference between the employer, who has the authority to determine the working situation, and the employee, who is impotent and under the authority of the employer’s induced working situation. Now studying the grief-provoking verses, “Achieving while others lifting, Should be cause for deserving fame,” we can understand the poet’s meaning of it together with the meaning of the previous verses. The word “lifting” in the thirteenth verse is allied with “accepting some work” and “perform” from verse nine because it is associated with doing the brunt of labor and shouldering responsibilities. It is this lifting, with “accepting some work to perform” and at “fixed pay, with promise for more,” that individuals comply with as commanded by their employers that is the accepted social standard and norm. Society has approved of lifting and earning a living through hard work as the work standard, which is known as the “American Dream.” The poet is rebelling against this societal standard when he raises “Achieving while others lifting,” or reaping success without sowing it, as the standard that should be worthy of “fame” or recognition. I elaborate on the normative judgment of the poet and the leisure verse in the thread on the emotions of “Excitement’s Crave.” I wonder whether it is our “preconceived notions” that prevent us from understanding the poet’s intended meaning or our dismissal of taking into consideration the surrounding verses and the whole composite of the poem in shedding light on the poet’s meaning of particular verses.

Only two options for interpreting the title, “Excitement’s Crave!” I am devastated as I had felt they were manifold. For example, “Excitement’s Crave” as a representation of the poet’s dual emotions, opposing sense of self and excitement’s crave representing an intensified form of excitement or a passion, representing life. Water’s thirst would be evaporation, symbolic of death.

The words “Mafia lord” are not that common to the movies. The movies refer to the authority in the Mafia as “the boss.” The words “Mafia lord” in the verse is suggestive of a conventional gender relationship where the man is the authority of the home, much as the feudal lords were of their estates, and the wife is subject to his authority. It implies that the poet may have actually known a person who was of Italian background and the head of his household. Even more, at the time of the release of the poem, only the Italian family and EAR knew that the Italian family had been attacked, indicating that they had been personally acquainted.

The file reminds of the type of file kept on children with behavioral, psychological and social problems. It could be pointing to the history of the EAR’s behavioral, psychological and social complications.

Despite all the questions and obfuscations raised from your analysis claiming another (non-EAR) author of "Excitement's Crave," you actually reeled in the reason that the poem could have been authored by EAR at the end of your analysis: “Alternating between transgression and chastisement”; The dichotomy of chaos and control, rebellion and conformity and self-augmentation and self-diminishment that we understand to be in the individual known as East Area Rapist.

Well... I just don't understand why I should be the Satyr when suggesting that the writer, or the voice of the 'EAR' in the poem was exactly 'Satyric'. Maybe it has to do with some unfounded psychic mind-reading about my assumed intentions, don't know. There's no reason to speculate about the interpreter's intentions if we aim at objectivity. It suffices to just try and point out why it probably isn't so - or what's better: why it couldn't be so - as the other interpreter suggested. 

One thing to keep in mind is that this interpretation is actually a process, and not completed. The gesture of creating a thread with a title doesn't mean that it was a proclamation of some completely "certain" theory that I would hope to be set in stone, with no room for doubt.

We have to consider the context of this forum. It's transitory in nature. Threads rise and drown, many theories and thoughts are entertained as they have been entertained throughout the years. Sometimes the same thoughts are revisited later on, and so on. At other times it's "this" and at others "that". But that's why there has been much discussion about this poem too. I've seen it scrutinized in many ways. My interpretation was about me arriving at a new viewpoint after some years of reading the poem and wondering about it. I just wanted to make the preliminary suggestion about the main point of my interpretation with this thread.

Perhaps I shouldn't have been dismissive of the other parts of the poem. Maybe I shouldn't have said that it's "not that interesting really". But the sense in which I wrote that had more to do with the pertinence to the aspect I was about to suggest in the post. It's only one dimension and perspective to view it as a "sardonic request" which was "probably written by someone else" (although, I already mentioned later on that I'm not so sure about that actually).

The other thing was, that the part about "mortals surviving birth", and other such aspects, are among those much scrutinized. I don't think I had anything to add or contribute to those former interpretations and suggestions by others. That's why I "hurried" over it and some other parts too. But also, when I said for example: "too much could be made of this line", it was in the context of what has been made of it before. In reference to some former theories that may have been convoluted in my opinion.

But then again, it's entirely possible that it's "not that interesting really" and "just some usual existential stuff". If you talk about projecting something to the poem that isn't there, why couldn't your estimation of the importance of those words or sections of the poem have been a projection just as well? 

Still, I may have to adress the poem as a whole, thoroughly, at some point - just to illustrate the interpretation better. Just to count out the suggested possibility that my interpretation was derived and perhaps possible only because I didn't consider the "composite" as a whole. I guess I would be actually capable of a very thorough interpretation when I found the energy. I just thought it sufficed for now to hurry over some points. But since there's your suspicion that I was just cutting pieces out to make my reading fit, I guess there would be a need for my complete analysis. Although, you seem to just repeat your principle of considering the whole "composition", something which I didn't do. Then you in turn are able to tell what it actually says, since you considered the whole composition and you should know. But you still offer no reason to believe that your intepretation of the whole composition in its entirety was the correct one to begin with, although you go back to that "composition" to ground your interpretation. You have no other basis for thinking that your picture of the poem's composition wasn't projective through and through, other than the reference to the mystic emotional feel that reaches the "actual" sense of the poem. 

So I'm tempted to write a thorough and complete analysis of the poem just to take out the "authority" from your claim about my cherry-picking projections, but it just seems futile in the sense that the claim isn't actually based on anything other than the dogma created by you yourself and by which you then confirm your own conclusions, too.

So, I just wonder how one may talk about the "actual" message of the poem without assuming some kind of a position of authority for himself when it comes to the "correct" interpretation? But that's the only position from which one would be able to be sure about whether other interpreters were projecting something to the poem, something that wasn't "actually" there. It's a position I don't have. You neither. Of course, without being a valid psychic at least.

'Excitement's Crave' may have many meanings, much of which have been discussed. My suggestion concerned itself mostly with the fact that the title may refer to the 'crave' made in the poem. The arguments presented (about the syntax and so on) are coming from perspective. Again, in sync with the general nature of this forum; the gesture is more about 'entertaining' a thought. If some theory  is presented "definitively", it just still isn't definitive. It's more in the sense of a thought experiment. Saying "there's only two ways" like I said can be translated into "from this point of view" or "entertaining a hypothetical rationale". And also, if I'm "certain" about something, it applies only to the moment, and the duration of time during which the certainty persists. 

When it comes to the 'Mafia lord', I didn't mean to suggest it literally that they were referred to as 'Mafia lords' in those movies. Of course, without a doubt; 'Mafia lords' can still be referred to as 'Mafia lords'. It's a fitting description from an outsider's point of view, since outsiders of course aren't in the position to call them "bosses". If you were to describe a Mafia lord from a movie descriptively, would you call him a "boss"? In any case, the fact is: the author came up with the term. So, in your estimation: the likelihood of the author associating a paternal figure with the authority of historic feudal lords and turning this association into a 'Mafia lord' due to knowing some Italian family personally - is greater than the likelihood of someone just referring to "those mafiosos" as 'Mafia lords' because they knew about Mafia (and the movies) and figured that a 'lord' would be a fitting characterization of their position (since 'lord' is a widely known historic term for authority), even though they knew or didn't know that the members of Mafia talk about "boss" in the movies?

The Italian family had been attacked in May, the poem which referred to the present time or to the immediate future with the "just now I'd like to..." arrived in December of the same year. Of course, it could be a literary nuance of misplaced temporality.

But in any case, I don't believe in the (old and usual) interpretation about the "Italian family". They were Italian, so that's reason enough for the author to refer to them as 'Mafia'? Did he, then, actually mean Jewish persons when he said 'Son of Sam'? The theme of that part in the poem seems to be about criminals in general.

But not to contradict you. You perhaps have some special key to the "actuality" of the poem. To me it seems that you could have just as great a likelihood of reading too much into it, whereas I could be just reading the "too little out of it" when it comes to this particular theoretical aspect of the poem with which I'm concerned with. It may be that I shouldn't even concern myself with that particular aspect either, if it serves no purpose. I thought it might serve a purpose to consider the possibility I suggest in this thread, when it comes to some other aspects of the case. But if the usual interpretation is (in main points) the correct one, then the poem actually isn't "really that interesting" - to me, as I don't believe it could be of utility. I don't subscribe to the "paradigm" that an overelaborate, romantic analysis of the "soul" of the author as (it's thought to be) expressed in this poem would have any utility, unfortunately.

Talking about myself, there are many things to interpret, and I would choose something else to interpret if I felt a need to interpret poems for the sake of interpretating poems. I wouldn't choose 'Excitement's Crave' solely for that purpose. My "paradigm", when it comes to the poem, is that only some "new" reconsiderations about the poem at its root could at least "potentially" be useful. But most likely not even then. Still I must say that I'm not looking for radical reconsiderations, or projecting them just because there's a need. This suggestion for an interpretation was just something that genuinely occurred to me. Of course, I don't know if it's some projection. You seem to have the means to tell me.

Be that as it may, in relation to this case (and so to the poem in question) I don't feel great need for philosophical "gratification" of being right. If my interpretation is only a projection, then I'm happy to admit it. But how should we, again, establish that? Not in anyway, other than if the true author (even if in the form of the caught EAR) stepped in and told us the true intentions behind the poem.

There is no reason for some implicit, unfounded sense of "competition" between interpretations. What is actually actual just stands on its own (even when it remains unknown), and what isn't actual didn't stand in the first place. You may be right in your interpretation. It's easier, and a relief to me, if you are right. At least you are very thorough and elaborate, and unfortunately (despite also being long-winded myself), it tires me to keep on elaborating and discussing matters this thoroughly for too long period of time. "I surrender", I might say.

I apologize for the sense of fatigue and incoherence of this reply. I wrote it after investing my energies to the reply I wrote in your thread earlier. I thought I'd quote it here too, since it contains further elaborations from my interpretative point of view, too. 

Apr 12, 2018 18:08:51 GMT justasking said:

Apr 12, 2018 8:18:20 GMT @mysterystory said:

Hello Justasking,

“A quatrain out of place,
To corroborate one’s case
And confirm interpretation,
Only creates obfuscation”

Pray tell, hast thou recently read “The Communist Manifesto” side by side with “Excitement’s Crave” or art thou channeling thy inner Karl Marx onto “Excitement’s Crave?” I muse…
Do you remember our initial exchange? In that exchange, I was explaining the importance of the whole composite for understanding identity. It is the same with understanding poetry. When you remove verses out of context to suit a particular interpretation, they no longer bring to light the meanings of the poem and the intentions of the poet. They have been alienated from their source. However, when you interpret them and the emotions they stir in you within the composite of the whole poem, you grasp the meanings of the poem in its purest state and the intentions of the poet.

Why do you feel that the poet is scoffing the achievers, individuals who have made their success on the backs of others? How much of this feeling is actually coming from the poet and how much is coming from you and your own values? Is the poet truly being satirical or are you in your own interpretation of the poet? I feel the latter especially since you have created a thread on the satire in “Excitement’s Crave.” Yes, the “general view” is “regrettable” because it does not favor your interpretation. Shall we look at the reason why? Why are people holding the opposite view? Let us look at the poem. Not only verse thirteen, but the verses before and after it because to understand that verse, the surrounding verses provide clues to its meaning.

From Excitement’s Crave, “Accepting some work to perform, At fixed pay, but promise for more, Is a recognized social norm.” In these verses, the poet has presented society’s definition of and the socially accepted work situation to you. See the words, “Accepting,” “perform” and “fixed pay.” They emit a sense of passivity and are associated with feelings of obedience, docility and routine. From his choice of words, the poet is showing the impotent role of the individual, as referred to by “accepting” and “perform” in opposition to the power of the employer who can dictate the amount of pay as indicated by “fixed pay” and “promise for more.” It is that impotent role of the individual in following orders and the potent role of the employer in dictating them that the poet designates as the “recognized social norm.” What is the poet’s message here? Society has established an accepted standard of working where there is a power difference between the employer, who has the power to determine the working situation, and the employee, who is powerless and under the authority of the employer’s induced working situation.

Now, when we look into the grief-provoking thirteenth verse of the poem that follows the verses explained above and the fourteenth verse coming after it, “Achieving while others lifting, Should be cause for deserving fame,” we can understand the poet’s meaning of it together with the meaning of verses nine through twelve. The word “lifting” in the thirteenth verse is allied with “accepting some work” and “perform” from verse nine because it is associated with doing work or the brunt of labor and shouldering responsibilities. Reading the word “lifting,” I see an image of a clerk in a grocery store hoisting supplies on his shoulder and heaving them onto the top shelf. It is this lifting, with “accepting some work to perform” and at “fixed pay, with promise for more,” that individuals comply with as decreed by their employers that is the accepted social standard and norm. Society has approved of lifting and earning a living through hard work as the working standard. The poet is rebelling against this societal standard when he raises “Achieving while others lifting,” or reaping success without sowing it, as the standard that should be applauded or worthy of “fame.” The tone of confident assertion on achievement without resort to hard work as a value judgment is in the words “should be cause.” The word “cause” carries weight, just as an assertion does, because it is an explanation for a phenomenon. The words, “should be cause,” tie the thirteenth verse to the fourteenth verse. The poet is suggesting that “Achieving while others lifting” or taking the easy way out needs to be the reason for recognition and not the other way around as society has imposed on us. That easy way out has a resourceful tone, similar to the first verse of the poem where resourceful mortals were able to survive birth. “Achieving while others lifting” shifts the power dynamic from the employer back to the employee, from society back to the individual.

When we study the following verse on leisure, “Leisure tempts excitement seeking,” after the previous verse on the individual taking back power, the feeling is that the individual now has the power to decide the individual’s own working situation. Since the individual has taken the easy way out by deciding not to be yoked to the demands of an employer, the individual experiences freedom, which is affiliated with “leisure” or free time. That “leisure tempts excitement seeking” because it gives the individual a taste of what power feels like, making the choice to live in the way that the individual wants and according to the value judgments of that own individual, “Achieving while others lifting” or reaping without sowing. Also look at the mention of “Jessie James” in the poem. He was a criminal who shared that same sense of resourcefulness as EAR because he achieved from the labor of others. Jessie James, a bank and train robber, stole resources and money from others’ hard work in a similar way to EAR stealing from his victims. The verses are strongly suggestive of EAR as the author because they express his resourcefulness in the ways that he would use the resources or labor of others, not to mention their homes, to achieve his crimes. The verse “Achieving while others lifting” was brought to life by the EAR in his crimes.

You mention the “mutual relationship that EAR has with the wider social reality.” What exactly is that “social reality?” A Luciferian social norm? Last I checked, Luciferianism has been confined to particular coteries that have been officializing themselves since 2014. Would people widely adhere to a diabolical social norm when they have established a society with rules and laws? What actually is that wider social reality in America, where EAR resided? Could it have some relationship with the “American Dream?” What is the “American Dream?” Is it not a value that has been shared by Americans across generations that through hard work and effort, they will reap success? Now we begin to see some light on that “social reality.” EAR was living in the midst of a society that raised the value of the American Dream over him, a value that he rebelled against because it deprived him of his power as an individual and his own self-gratification. He sought to reverse that “mutual relationship” where he could gain power at the expense of others. His defiance against society was his way of increasing his own self-worth instead of losing it in increasing the worth of others. It takes us back to that feeling of the power of the self or free will to decide the course of one’s life.

In view of the “American Dream” as EAR’s social reality, it appears that society believed that achievement is about deserving success through the hard work and efforts of one’s own work. We can see how the general consensus on the meaning of “Achieving while others lifting” in the poem is supported by the historical significance of the “American Dream” to American society. EAR opposed the tenets of this Dream because they were affiliated with a power structure that removed the power from the individual and gave it to society whereas he was seeking or craving individual power, like the title of his poem, “Excitement’s Crave.”

The feeling coming to me is that it is not the poet, but the interpreter of the poem who is associating the opposite emotion with the poet, that “achieving while others lifting” should be decried, because this kind of shocking revelation would stir a rise out of people for much “craved” attention.

I'm about to start with denial. But keeping in mind the status of 'denial' as a psychological defense mechanism, I hope you won't read it in that sense, because sometimes the primary function of words is only to describe something, to deliver a message.

It's not a projection. I'm not a communist, nor does my own perspective to the world resonate with my interpretation of what the author is getting at. I also tried to make clear that I just couldn't think of a better specimen to exemplify the sentiment I'm getting from the verse. It doesn't matter that it was from Karl Marx, since from rhetorics used by ideologues we may find some great examples of sentiments. But as I said in the post; "I'm only touching on this political scenario for the purpose of clarifying..." Still I must say it again: I wasn't painting the author as some Marxist, nor aimed to have the poem fit some Marxist view. The 'Communist Manifesto' is part of the cultural historical canon, and that's why it's readily accessible to use as an example of sentiments, even when there's nothing recent about the familiarity with it.

You say the poem should be read as a whole, and I agree completely. I commented only on one part. So did I just pick the cherry (to fit my projection), disregarding the crucial context? Perhaps seemingly. But actually my interpretation relies on the succession of the poem, and not on that particular sentence only. Were the sentence presented to me without the rest of the poem, I might not arrive at my recent conclusion at all. And yes, my interpretation is recent, but my familiarity with the poem isn't. The interpretation I'm suggesting is not the one that occurred to me immediately in the beginning, as I came aware of the poem and began to wonder about the underlying sense of it. My primary impression was precisely in line with the interpretation that seems to be the most common one (meaning the main 'gist' of it, since there is no such unitary monolith as "many"). But, talking about projections and such, there were some preconceived notions involved in that (my primary) interpretation. Preconceived notion about who the author is, but also preconceived notions about what kind of a person would the EAR have been. And even if you think that words give away the emotional investments of the author (as they most likely do, in fact) - you still have many different possible interpretions for any word and for what may be the feeling behind the word. It's always a leap of faith, and it always has to do with some kind of a projection. There's no way to escape it. The projection may not be personal, but more in the sense of projecting a primary interpretation to the actual interpretation. So it becomes a self-referential circle in which the premise and conclusion are used to confirm each other. That's why I'm always interested when one changes his once embraced interpretation into a different one. Because there's a certain flexibility in having no truth set in stone. And that in turn may be favorable for the aim at objectivity.

Okay, so going back to the context and the succession of the poem. Stanza beginning with "Achieving..." comes after the author has described how the "promise for more" is a recognized social norm, as well as "decorum" and "seeking lore". But even before those, like you mention, there was "Accepting some work to perform / at fixed pay...", and this stanza must be addressed as belonging to the immediate context as well. "Accepting" is an ambivalent word to some degree, since when one is in the position to accept something, there can be by the same token an implied sense of being in the position to deny, "not accept" it - to "turn the offer down". Basically, "to accept" is to receive something agreeably, not against one's will. And sometimes there's also a certain status of power involved where there is "acceptance". "Accept the offer" versus "Request denied".

But when it's said: "accepting some work to perform at fixed pay", one may get a sense that the tone of the verb "to accept" is different. Sometimes people say about their unfortunes something like: "I have to accept it, since there's nothing I can do about it". So the concept of "acceptance", which inherently has the meaning of an actual agreement, has transformed to have this different sense to it too. It's not a higher position anymore, but a lower one. The active dimension has given way for the passive one. Accepting some work to perform, like being at mercy of the offer. Nothing else they can do but to accept.

But then again, "to accept" may also be a more neutral and descriptive word. There doesn't have to be any great sentiment. When someone agrees to receive a work to perform, this empirical situation may be described as "accepting a work to perform". So, if the author of the poem wanted to describe this occupational stage of life in the "biographical", chronological succession of the poem (and there is such chronology; the poem starts with "birth", after all), he may just have put the description in those terms without great emotional tones. It's possible, since there is a robotic sense to some of the verbs used in the poem. "Selected route", for example. Accepting, selecting, like a robot. There's also something clinical about the verb "to peform". Of course, there is also the sense of performance in "perform". Performance is something for the eyes of others. Like a dog conditioned to perform some trick.

Of course, we have to consider the line completely to determine the sense of it. It wasn't only a "work" - it was "some work". The term "some" is a term of ambiguity. It gives a sense of the work being "whatever work" - not anything meaningful, something faceless. But then again, "some" may also be a more neutral expression of something that's not definite.

As a whole:

"Accepting some work to perform
At fixed pay, but promise for more"

The impression is such that the person either agrees neutrally to accept the offer for a job, or that he does so reluctantly. What the job is doesn't matter to the person (one could even say - without any projected sympathies, but in a reasonable objective reference - that he's "alienated" from the menial task...), since it is only "some work" that he accepts. And he accepts that "whatever" work to "perform", it is said. There are standards to performance. Evaluations about good or poor performance. But at fixed pay the quality of performance doesn't affect the paycheck. Everyone with the same fixed pay deserves the same amount, even if others performed better than the others; did more work (de facto), accomplished more, got more results than the others - it doesn't matter if they "perform" better, because it doesn't show in in what they "deserve" with that "fixed pay". And of course, there doesn't even have to be other workers to compare, because the picture can be seen already from the fact that even if one and the same person tried to perform better, it still wouldn't matter since his pay is "fixed". The incentive to perform better is lacking.

On a side note, it would be unexpected if you failed to see how the sociology of work (the natural habitat for Marx references, but it could be Adam Smith as well - depends on the poem) might have some pertinence here. Not because of projected politics of the interpreter, but for the simple reason that it resonates with the theme chosen by the author himself. But only as a referential tool one may use here to help the elaboration.

"Accepting" all that. The progressive present tense is used with the "accepting", and that's the tendency of the poem as a whole. It's a picture of an ongoing action, something that's happening all the time in the world. Already in the beginning there's a third-person mention of "all those mortals surviving birth". They are surviving birth as we speak. And those who have already reached maturity are accepting some work to perfom, as we speak. It seems to be a general description of what humans do as a whole, all the time, throughout their particular chronologies. But, as the poem begins with the third-person "those mortals", after which the third-person is dropped and it changes into a progressive present tense in the passive form with "choosing" and so on, there is at the same time the implicit remnant of the third-person "they" still making an effect through those passive forms too, lingering on from the: "those mortals". (For them) choosing values becomes a task. (They are) accepting some work to perform. But then comes the "achieving" which cannot preserve the third-person 'they' (those mortals) anymore if it's a normative statement. But as a first-person normative statement it won't fit into the implicitly third-person passive succession either. The implicit background for the "achieving", then,  is something like those mortals getting a certain impression; "they see that", "they take notice of how", or perhaps even "they come to think that". In any case, it changes the sense of the poem, even if it's a description of basically the same situation it is taken to be an immediate expression of (the difference between third person/passive description and first-person judgement).

Like my point goes, there's a discrepancy between the verbs "accepting" and "achieving", if we go with the thought that "accepting" was used as a starting word for a passive, descriptive statement, whereas "achieving" was used as a starting word for making a normative statement. Talking about context, this doesn't fit the structure of the poem as a whole.

1. Choosing values becomes a task / oneself must seek satisfaction

-Here the author describes how choosing values becomes a task. It may be an autobiographical reference in the passive form, but it's a description nevertheless.

Choosing values becomes a task, and one abandons the task, to seek his own satisfaction. Maybe the word 'task' isn't a neutral statement here. It doesn't refer to the neutral picture about the mortals who, upon facing maturity, are presented with the task of choosing values. If they were presented with "the task" of choosing values, it would only reflect the generality. The task of choosing values would be their main concern at that point in life, the greatest task. But in the task there would be no sense of resentment sparked by the difficulty of the task. There could be even some pride and willing involvement in 'the task'. But when choosing values becomes a task, there is a connotation of the sense that the task is bothersome. And since it's a task in nature, the first thought is that it's bothersome because it's just "too much work, too much trouble".

The word 'must' may refer to a condition in which the "oneself" has to seek satisfaction due to the circumstance. There is nothing else one could do in the situation, so he "must" do the only thing possible. Or is this a normative word? Does the narrator here make a statement about how one "should" (with the 'must') seek his own satisfaction? But choosing values became "a task". It's too much work to choose values. So, oneself "must" seek satisfaction due to the difficulty, due to the condition and circumstance. That would make the use of the word "must" descriptive in nature, in this context, instead of it being a proclamation of (a normative) judgement.

So the sense behind this can be phrased along the lines of: "choosing values becomes a task, and that's why oneself must seek satisfaction".

2. Accepting some work to perform / At fixed pay, but promise for more...

-This too is a description about accepting some work to perform at fixed pay, and then it is added that: "but promise for more is a recognized social norm". So we have here a description of activity, of something that happens. And with the "but" it is made clear that there's nevertheless some "promise for more" that is recognized as a social norm. It doesn't say anything along the lines of "but I've been promised more". The description of generality (of how the promise is recognized as a social norm) makes it explicitly clear that it's a description.

This part doesn't even have to be phrased in other way to get the descriptive sense of it.

3. Achieving while others lifting / Should be cause for deserving fame

-Now, here is the part where it is often assumed that the narrator was all of a sudden voicing a first-person proclamation. Again, I think such an assumption would be oblivious (to some degree) to the wider context of the poem's succession.

In my interpretation we have these comparable turns of narration: 1. '...Hence...' - 2. '...But...' before the 3. 'Should'. I just can't see the first-person normative statement in the "should" anymore. Not to mention the fact that after the "should be cause for deserving fame", the poem continues to describe how "leisure tempts excitement seeking". And the fact that the narrator assumes the first-person position explicitly only later on during the shift: "Sacramento should make an offer...".

We may see how the upcoming "Sacramento should make an offer" has a "should" in it too. Only at that later point it becomes the "should" voiced by the first-person, the 'East Area Rapist' himself. And in fact, it's exactly an echo of the descriptive "should" of "deserving fame" that came before. That's the compositional effect of the poem; to first describe the general "should" of society, and later on assume that "should" to himself like an attitude that's learned. I myself hear the two variations of the sense of the "should" in the poem "rhyme" with each other, if that makes sense. "Since... achieving while others lifting / should be cause for deserving fame - Sacramento should make an offer".

The fact that the narrator may be resentful towards the thought of "accepting some work to perform" still doesn't contradict the negative, regrettable sense given to the thought that "achieving while others are lifting should be cause for deserving fame". Those two elements almost gain from each other, in fact.

They accept some meaningless, menial work to perform, and the performance doesn't matter. The pay is fixed. But they too recognize the social norm of "promise for more". Fittingly enough, there's a song by Eddie & the Hot Rods (I think?) by name 'Do Anything You Wanna Do', where it says: "Tired of doing day jobs / with no thanks for what I do / I'm sure I must be someone / And I'm gonna find out who". Now, on a side note, I don't have any special affinity for that band or that song, just like I'm not a Marxist. These are all just reference points that happen to occur to me from the storage of my mind, when there seems to be a similarity. But anyway, the main gist of those lines of the song I quoted is the same as the sense I gather from the lines in the poem: "accepting some work to perform - at fixed pay - but (there's a) promise for more". It's not the thought of accepting some work per se that's "despicable" in the author's reference. It's the fixed pay. The fact that there's no incentive to perform better. The prospect for having a sense of "achievement" is restricted by that fact. And "to perform at fixed pay" is then polarized with "achieving while others lifting": Whereas the sense of achievement according to the level of "performance" is restricted by the fixed pay (although there "should" have been the "more" that was promised), it still seems that those who gather results without lifting at all ”should” deserve their fame. And the tempting abandonment of work, the ”leisure”, comes to be viewed as a desirable state. So one may achieve even more, as the leisure tempts excitement which leads to crimes, and hence, potentially to great infamy such as Son of Sam’s.

And this isn’t in any contradiction to what you say about the ’American Dream’ and the ethos of hard work. It just adds to the point. Someone like EAR (or the author in any case) may have been raised to believe in that ethos of: ”work pays”. They have trusted in the ”promise for more”, come to expect that what is "deserved" would depend on one’s level of performance. If you do more or better, you deserve more and better. The ’fixed pay’ is a negation of this. Precisely someone who had believed in the said ethos might view the recent disintegration of the 70’s regrettably, and refer to the rearing contemporary spirit resentfully. How nowadays (that’s the ”contemporary Zeitgeist”) it has begun to seem like the norm ”should” be the opposite to the usual work ethic.
Signs of an opposite message (opposite to the 'American Dream') appear: "do less (while others lift)" or "do worse (the crimes)" and you "deserve more and better".

So there is the discrepancy between the restricted ”achievement” of the work at fixed pay and the ”achievement” while others are lifting. This general, recent impression of the times tempts those mortals to abandon their work, and it’s due to the unfair sense of the discrepancy between achievements. It's on the topic of who seems to deserve, and what. Why would they bother to ”perform” at fixed pay, since ”achieving while others lifting” is viewed like it should be ”cause for fame”? That’s the attitude they themselves may come to assume too. But at this point in the poem the ”should” is not a first-person judgement. It’s only in reference to the contemporary general attitude that does its part in paving the way towards individuals such as EAR. Only later on in the poem has the EAR been "bred", and there’s a demonstration about how he himself has assumed the attitude as his own, when he himself says defiantly and in the sense of ”isn’t this the impression we’ve been given?”; ”Sacramento should make an offer”. 'Craving' Sacramento to make the offer, since he now has the right to demand so. In the end he's the "deserving" pest. He has figured it out that he, too, "should" be "deserving".

Okay, I think that was pretty much that.

My interpretation is actually somewhat in line with your interpretation, but with the difference of what the part about the first "should" means. For you it's a first-person expression of arrogance and the sense of superiority over the menial work, "lifting", as felt by the author already from the beginning, immediately, as he goes on to express this attitude in a normative first-person statement about what is his personal "ideal": "achieving while others lifting should be cause for deserving fame". Saying it immediately. Later on saying that Sacramento "should make an offer". Both in the same sense, conveying his personal judgement about what "should be / happen". Repetitive sense of the "should". Beginning the chronology from birth, as if he was trying to describe a developmental process. But all of a sudden there's an unfitting normative statement in the middle of the descriptive categories. Like if you first had mountains, trees, and then (what is said in) the Constitution - and then the sea. 

For me, the "should" is a description; a more general and passive "should" belonging to the descriptive succession where the author describes what is "going on" in the world. Because at this point it's not stated in first-person, and the "gimmick" of the poem to my mind is exactly the later shift from passive voice to first-person. Like I mentioned, for me there is a reflective relation going on between the former descriptive "should" in the passive voice, and the later first-person proclamation (or a 'crave', like I suggest it) about what Sacramento "should" offer. There's a certain cessation to the "Sacramento should make an offer", since it's the shift, halfway between the description: "others now feel temptations call" and the proper assumption of first-person position in "to make a movie of my life".  This is the drumbeat which transforms the situation, transforming the formerly passive sense of "should" into an active judgement as well, formation of an echo that depends on the variation between the earlier passive description and what has become an active judgement at this point. I think one of the possible preconceived notions could be that the poem should have little merit (if at all) to it when it came to having these sorts of literary effects. Anyway, for me the poem is describing the process of "becoming EAR" in relation to the wider social context (which I tried to refer to with the word "mutual"). In sense, the 'EAR' only "learns to speak" when he learns to say: "Sacramento should make an offer", and there is a moment of surprise such as there always is when the baby says its first words. Keep in mind that this (EAR as a baby learning to talk) wasn't anything too literal either, but served as the figurative means by which I'm trying to convey the sense I see in the poem.

So there's still a good difference between these two interpretations of the first "should". It changes the poem's internal sense.

Then some additional notes.

You seem to be an educated person, so it would be somewhat unexpected to me if you weren’t familiar with the Biblical character ’Lucifer’, which belongs to the canon of Western cultural history, and is widely used as an archetypal reference, usually standing for ”pride” in addition to the ”lust for more”. ’Luciferian’ is an adjective of Lucifer, and means: ”Lucifer-like”, ”in the vein of Lucifer”. I was just characterizing the social norm as "Luciferian" figuratively. And I put the quotation marks to it too, exactly because I didn't want to have it sound too conrete, literal or radical, in addition to not wanting to give the wrong picture about what I meant. The quotation marks tried to serve the purpose of making it clear that this was just my characterization of the sense of the social norm of the "should" (or more properly;  the "promise for more" that had now transformed from the former and fair work ethics of the "promise" into that more questionable, unfair and "shiny" form of "more" - "Luciferian" in this sense...), and not what I thought the author had in mind literally. And after all, there is talk about "temptations" in the poem, in resonance with common religious language. It wouldn't be out of place to make use of a Biblical archetype as a non-literal figure of speech.

That’s the only sense in which I used the characterization ”Luciferian”, and didn’t imagine it would be an unusual reference in a literary discussion. So it would be odd that you’d assume I was referring to some weird sect (?) of ’Luciferianism’ which you seem to have checked last time to have been established in 2014. It sounds like it might have just fit your own projection to have me talking about something which seems to be some pet topic of conspiracy theorists (?), beside your assumption that I was projecting my own politics (that weren’t my own to begin with) into the poem, although the obvious option would have been that I was merely using a common Biblical symbolic reference, dating all the way back to the time period B.C., as opposed to 2014.

And when I said in my post something along the lines of: ”not many seem to be familiar”, it was mostly rhetoric. I meant it only in the context of the poem’s interpretation, meaning ”not many who interpret it this way seem to be familiar…”. Maybe it was slightly malevolent way to put it, but in essence; what I was trying to say was just that ”not many interpreters of the poem seem to consider this”. It had nothing to do with what I hoped to be decried. It was about pointing out that there are people who think in those terms, and it is entirely possible that the author of the poem was among them, or was at least describing a sentiment that resonated with that group. There was no personal need, in the sense you suggest, guiding me to say that. Matters of interpretation were the interest there, not any "cause" of my own outside the topic of the poem. This "feeling" you got simply wasn't correct. It could be that you got that feeling because you were taking my references too literally from the beginning. Apparently you'd think it were more probable that I had some special concern for all matters Marx or Lucifer, instead of the Bible and 'Communist Manifesto' just happening to be some canonical works and to which it's easy to refer for that very reason when searching for examples and reference points - even more so in the "literary" context. 

It may also be said that my interpretation doesn't have to be considered as something greatly "oppositional" to others. It could only be an alternative interpretative take on it. I truly reserve the possibility that I could be wrong, if it was so proven. Of course, literary intentions are hard to "prove" one way or the other.

Anyway, it may be better that I’ll leave room for the more on-topic discussion about your thorough analysis in this thread. I don’t want to ”hijack” your thread in any sense. Let’s not let the veneer crumble.  

[prayingmantis]

Ok all this talk of objectivity subjectivity projection and everything jazzy..
Objectivity is subjectivity experiencing other subjectivity at best and I won't argue on that point study some quantum physics or something. Our own subjectivity is like our own experience analogous to schlicks castle in the park experience. We don't want to go back and forth on ...is that something in your castle because that's not in my castle so how can I trust you're seeing something in their castle and not your own castle let me see everything in your castle and so forth.

The poem is a kind of gateway we want to see in that castle. We have our own castles too. On a subatomic level there are no castles or separation of classical systems in space.

Please don't attack my castle or expect me to show you everything in my castle expecting I will defend my position that I am seeing something in someone else's castle. Questioning why we may think along certain lines is something else but let's not get lost in terms of objectivity subjectivity and projection we are trying to do more than engage in philosophical debate. We should all feel fine to be able to put our thoughts out as we choose.

[prayingmantis]

"EC: A Sardonic Request" or “A Satirical Analysis of a Satyr”?

EC
A sardonic request
A satirical analysis of a satyr
Score!

[Deleted]

Hello Justasking,

There seems to have been much misunderstanding. I regret my earlier message on this thread with the questions as you are tired and should be resting instead of responding. I posted that message here because I wanted to share my understanding of the poem with you as you did with me on the emotions and "Excitement's Crave" thread. Please just disregard the message here. I apologize on it.

I just want to share these comments with you, and then I promise that I will no longer comment on and derail your thread. I never intended for the “Satyr” in my question on the title to represent you. The Satyr was EAR in the poem exactly as you referred to him. I was just jesting that your analysis of the poem on the “Satyr EAR” could be perceived as a form of satire in itself. I enjoyed reading your interpretation as the author of the poem very well could be someone other than the EAR with the keen rumination to challenge the leisure-loving loafers or “leeches” of society as you aptly described them.

Sharing interpretation is not about which is right or wrong. Each interpretation has value. You must continue to develop yours as I believe it is groundbreaking. It is different and unique from all the other interpretations, including my own, and reflects human indignation at societal injustice. Yours illuminates that a moral conscience runs through the fabric of our society appealing for social and economic classes to reconsider the power structure and collaborate to serve the needs of people in each class, so that rebels and mavericks will have no reason to employ aggressive tactics to exact justice. The author of the poem is using parody to reflect the injustices of the leisure-loving elite back to them and showing them that their “achievement” on the “lifting” backs of others is what has earned them fame. They owe their success to the hard work of others.

There are so many economic references in the poem to bolster your interpretation. The materialism of the ruling elite imposed on society with the emphasis on “inventory of their worth,” “choosing values becomes a task,” and “accepting some work to perform at fixed pay” with only a “promise for more” but never the materialization of that “more,” which further instigates that societal injustice.

Then there are the references to criminals in the poem who have been violently challenging the ruling elite and their social norms historically, the bank robber “Jessie James,” the retributive “Son of Sam” and the “Mafia lord” or Godfather-like cliques.

You see that there is much evidence in the poem connected by your outstanding reasoning to support your interpretation. Logic and reasoning are straightforward and so clearly visibly tied with evidence and credibility. You are right in that not the same can be said of emotion. Emotions are diaphanous and intangible, difficult to grasp and questionable. I am actually not that thorough and elaborate as is noticeable from my continual edits, always adding in details that I miss.

I find this forum to be abiding with its record of threads from the past to present and all the amazing contributions from people close to this case. I even see deep and lasting bonds forming between the participants here, supporting each other to understand and shed light on this case for greater understanding and revelations to help solve the mystery. See your thread in the same way, that it is a lasting contribution here.

As you have wisely observed, interpretation is a process, so take time to explore the particular options that arise for you in forming your understanding of the satirical request in the poem. Develop further, write up your interpretation of “Excitement’s Crave: A Sardonic Request,” and send it for publication. Take heart and know that your interpretation will be enduringly celebrated across society.

[justasking]

Apr 13, 2018 8:56:10 GMT @mysterystory said:

Hello Justasking,

There seems to have been much misunderstanding. I regret my earlier message on this thread with the questions as you are tired and should be resting instead of responding. I posted that message here because I wanted to share my understanding of the poem with you as you did with me on the emotions and "Excitement's Crave" thread. Please just disregard the message here. I apologize on it.

I just want to share these comments with you, and then I promise that I will no longer comment on and derail your thread. I never intended for the “Satyr” in my question on the title to represent you. The Satyr was EAR in the poem exactly as you referred to him. I was just jesting that your analysis of the poem on the “Satyr EAR” could be perceived as a form of satire in itself. I enjoyed reading your interpretation as the author of the poem very well could be someone other than the EAR with the keen rumination to challenge the leisure-loving loafers or “leeches” of society as you aptly described them.

Sharing interpretation is not about which is right or wrong. Each interpretation has value. You must continue to develop yours as I believe it is groundbreaking. It is different and unique from all the other interpretations, including my own, and reflects human indignation at societal injustice. Yours illuminates that a moral conscience runs through the fabric of our society appealing for social and economic classes to reconsider the power structure and collaborate to serve the needs of people in each class, so that rebels and mavericks will have no reason to employ aggressive tactics to exact justice. The author of the poem is using parody to reflect the injustices of the leisure-loving elite back to them and showing them that their “achievement” on the “lifting” backs of others is what has earned them fame. They owe their success to the hard work of others.

There are so many economic references in the poem to bolster your interpretation. The materialism of the ruling elite imposed on society with the emphasis on “inventory of their worth,” “choosing values becomes a task,” and “accepting some work to perform at fixed pay” with only a “promise for more” but never the materialization of that “more,” which further instigates that societal injustice.

Then there are the references to criminals in the poem who have been violently challenging the ruling elite and their social norms historically, the bank robber “Jessie James,” the retributive “Son of Sam” and the “Mafia lord” or Godfather-like cliques.

You see that there is much evidence in the poem connected by your outstanding reasoning to support your interpretation. Logic and reasoning are straightforward and so clearly visibly tied with evidence and credibility. You are right in that not the same can be said of emotion. Emotions are diaphanous and intangible, difficult to grasp and questionable. I am actually not that thorough and elaborate as is noticeable from my continual edits, always adding in details that I miss.

I find this forum to be abiding with its record of threads from the past to present and all the amazing contributions from people close to this case. I even see deep and lasting bonds forming between the participants here, supporting each other to understand and shed light on this case for greater understanding and revelations to help solve the mystery. See your thread in the same way, that it is a lasting contribution here.

As you have wisely observed, interpretation is a process, so take time to explore the particular options that arise for you in forming your understanding of the satirical request in the poem. Develop further, write up your interpretation of “Excitement’s Crave: A Sardonic Request,” and send it for publication. Take heart and know that your interpretation will be enduringly celebrated across society.

Perhaps I should read my former reply to you to refresh my memory; just to see the amount of venom there might have been coming from my direction in this context, so I could possibly come up with the antidote. But I think I'll read it again afterwards, and write this reply first.

Okay. I don't remember feeling that you were "derailing" this thread. I should think your respective reply to "my" thread was only fair, since it was in perfect symmetry with the fact that I felt the need to comment in "your" thread (and I did it first, I think). I neither consider myself the "owner" of this thread, even though I started it. A message board such as this one should be democratic in nature. I'm no authority here. You don't have to regret anything.

It's true, now that you clarify it further; I think I misunderstood the meaning of your question.  

To me, you seem skillful in writing. I get the sense that there's many subtle nuances to your writing, and many times I don't seem to know what to make of it, in regards to how should I interpret the tone or the suggestions made. So I can easily get it wrong. But it's also a reflection of my own shortcomings when it comes to matters of interpretation.

I think I already mentioned it, but I don't think it necessary that there should be great merit to this interpretation. It's only about the sense and the "effect" I began to see in the poem unexpectedly, and was new to me. I just don't have any idea whether anyone else might see the said "effect" taking place there, the poem's "sense" in this light. That's what would interest me. But in any case, if it was possible to establish (which it isn't, I guess) that this interpretation was definitely wrong, in the most actual sense of who is the author and what was he "going for" with the poem, it would be very easy to let go of. But of course, the poem is an interesting phenomenon as a whole. The "haunting" uncertainty of it, the ambiguity.

It would "tempt" me to write about it more, but due to the lack of solid premises it's always somewhat of a great guess. But if there should be some utility involved when considering the actual context, it might be a wasted effort due to the mentioned uncertainty.

All in all, my main issue is that I don't always seem to be able to communicate meanings in a way that would be satisfactory to myself, and it's sometimes frustrating instead.

Yeah, there was lack of sleep, but no-one is to blame for that. I think I said something about lack of energy, as I had composed the lengthy reply to the thread started by you. But it was only my way of explaining some unstable and incoherent aspects that were most likely to be detected in my writing, and in addition I was making a note about how I had made the effort to present my "case" in the other thread just earlier, to demonstrate that I'm not trying to answer half-heartedly on purpose in the later reply to the post in this thread (that I was just more or less "done for the day").

Then there was something unnecessary I most likely wrote in this thread too, as well as in the thread started by you. I'm sorry if there should be 'sorry' involved. But I don't feel slighted, and hopefully you neither. It's a pretty small matter. Don't worry.

[justasking]

The poem, written by EAR, would actually have the pretty much the same underlying sense as I suggested but not so much as a social commentary, since that assumption rested on the possibility that it was written by some outsider with some "communal" motive. The author in any case chose the sonnet form. Had formal considerations about composing the poem. I think the author actually thought about it, there was an intentional thought process involved, like often is the case with literary composition. It is not always about one expressing his inner states in their raw form (on a typewriter) on the paper, but there is thoughtful reflection involved in the composition process.

The theme of the poem is in any case, to my thinking, about development. Chronological story of becoming an adult. But the tone is failed expectations, disappointment and one's sense of injustice regarding what is one's due. And later on in the poem there is a thematic shift which I already tried to elaborate on somewhat, I guess. When the narrator begins to use the EAR's voice. EAR as the author using his voice, but still literarily, of course, since it's a poem. Addressing mayor's office with "Sacramento" inside the poem, and then newspaper and TV. All three addressess he sent the poem to.

Actually, I do still think there are preconceived notions and not enough consideration for the author's own reflective process.

What is said about inventory of one's worth, choosing of values as a task, seeking satisfaction, selected route and plans taking action - belong all to what was "right and expected". Of course, "plans taking action" will have a retrospective double meaning to it, but earlier on it actually may mean something more "innocent". Career paths, education and so on, which reveal that pedagogical-sounding (good) "character".

He has trusted the promise for more, behaved appropriately according to decorum, and probably acquired education (seeking lore as a subtle hint).

The is the "others" who lift but isn't deserving. It is not his leisure yet that tempts his excitement seeking. It is the other's leisure tempting them. It is not his "should" with achievement and deserving fame, since he is still the "others" that is lifting at that point (performing at fixed pay). He expects fairness, or what he views to be "fair". He has expectations himself.

He comes to the realization that no-one gets one's real share, what is "deserved" by doing all things right and expected. Even surviving birth could be viewed as his success but he wasn't rewarded. He feels grudge, disappointment, resentment which turns into sort of a defiance and "not caring", coldening. He loosens his grasp from the "expected" as he loosens his grasp from his own "expectations". He doesn't have,to give anything if anything isn't given to him. And he wants his fair share of that share which seemed unfair to him. It's passive-aggressive and, yes, in a sense, it is sardonic. But it is still a true sentiment of cynicism. He is still relatively "light-mooded" about the whole thing as he is writing a sonnet about being a serial rapist.

He has come to adulthood and figured out that the game wasn't fair to begin with, and he expresses with cynical humor, with a tone of both "revenge" and the "chastisement". He throws it to "their" face that it's their fault since "they" didn't found a society that would have been "fair" and he would have got what he deserved and as was promised for him if he just fulfilled those developmental tasks that were presented to him. He selected his route and plans took action as he possibly went to school (seeking lore), and found an occupation. Then he had the unsatisfactory "fixed pay" job which added to his sense of injustice. And to see how those who achieve while others (he himself) lift deserve their fame, and as those achievers have leisure which tempts them to seek excitement, he becomes more cynical and abandons it. Why should he have to? (But remember, what is empirical reality isn't the point here, but his impression which might just as well have been false) Everything seems to be upside down already, so if he now on the opposite doesn't do what's right and expected, he might even deserve his due. Which is a paradox. He wants his "unfair share", like said.

So he has finally leisure of his own (As hinted at by "others now feel temptations call" - earlier leisure and tempting were connected; to say later on that "others now feel temptations" is then, to my mind, say "now others have leisure too". And he himself was the "others" here. Others who lift and later on hear the temptations call) and he hears the temptations call to excitement and now he has the excitement too as he un-deserves it and by virtue of excitement has a right to claim his due or the "unfair share" from Sacramento, and it is still sardonic. Still it's a reflection of true feelings of disappointment and injustice, transgressive-chastisement like already touched upon. He is the one who's just, but he's now invertedly "just"; the negative version of what is right and expected, the "night" of what "would have been fair". He is still cold, distant and cynical. And still he can laugh about it because there is certain disconnection and superiority. But the difference is that he has actually complied for a relatively long period of time. The poem isn't a list of his bad deeds but good deeds "unpaid", and his act of claiming the pay now through the identity of bad deeds.

Of course, it's not due to occupational conditions one would have so strong feelings and actions only. But he himself has attached certain meaning to those more mundane "unpaid for" occurrences too. It's not due to having to lift while others don't (writing sentences 100-150) exactly that he is disappointed. The disappointment has to be something deeper, perhaps. But nothing would stop him from himself thinking it in more mundane terms too. In any case, the greatest issue of the writer of the 'Mad is the word' essay probably wasn't the issue that was explicitly chosen as a topic (cancelled field trips and so on).

My interest in the "Achieving while others lifting" - line isn't due to a personal fixation on that line or my need to see different senses in it or that I took it separately. It is due to the fact that I actually believe it's the correct interpretation in the whole context of the poem. And the implied message of the poem depends on it very much. Not on the individual lines separately, but on the lines in connection to the whole poem as one idea. It fits the poem as a whole, and the "Achieving..."-stanza marks the shift in the poem's narration, from the narrator's developmental story as he 1. belongs to "all those mortals" and complies with tasks and expectations and accepts the work - 2. through the moment of disappointment and the moment of "unfair" impression of the "achieving"-sanza - 3. using the rhythmic "staircase" of Jesse James and Son of Sam as ladders to arrive at the statement made after this shift; as it now becomes his first-person voice and he has arrived to claim what would be his "fair unfair share" in turn.

He is still the same "others" at the moment when "others" hear temptations call (of course, we know it is implied that he is the others who hears temptations call, since that's the point as he presents his "should" of fame to Sacramento - and that's how we have correctly always read it as well) as he was already / still when "others  lifting", "others used to lift / now they hear temptations call" - and since "leisure tempts excitement seeking", as was generally mentioned earlier; now these "others" are in the position to hear temptations call, and it is an effectual mirroring inversion subtly indicating that these others now have leisure in turn. Comes to mind something like finally having had enough when one got fired or put to a lay-off period etc., a "sardonic" "hmm" about what to do with the newly-found leisure. Then he becomes the first person "I" finally after he is now so deserving that he should be referred to as a first-person, and not merely implicitly with "all those mortals" like in the beginning, or with the "others" like in the middle. First he belongs to "All" - then to "Others" - and finally "My / I" ...But for this structure to be seen, it just appears to me that the "achieving"-stanza as the shift-making one in the subjects and object relations and references etc. is important for/in the composition.

Anyway, the author is the "others". Again, I say: he thought about the poem. It is in a sonnet form, after all. He make choices about formal aspects.

I mark "Him" with (Sub.) since he's the true implicit and later on explicit subject of the poem. Of course, with Sub. we have both the "subject" and the "subdominant", but that's a play-on-words on a sidenote. With (Ob.) I mark those "objects" (persons or groups) he is contrasting himself with. The (Ob.) marks those who he (Sub.) himself views as "others", but perhaps tellingly he himself is the explicit "others" in the poem, reflecting how he views those others (Ob.) of his own otherness as primary and himself as secondary "other" --- until he finally becomes the most non-other My / I to make the demand. So here I'm just trying to demonstrate which statements refer to himself as a subject and which statements to those others he sets himself in contrast to, or whose "ranks" he will later defiantly join.

(Ob.) is not any one particular person or group. It is just a phantasmal category of his own mind about "generality". It may have been sparked by some actual experience in his own life etc. - but the effect of his comparison in "worth" is what makes up the end result of the (Ob.) as a category.

And there are additional specifications also to (Sub.) or (Ob.) markings, with which I intended to demonstrate the parts which mirror or echo or polarize each other, or whatever it is called. I'm working with limited knowledge here, just trying to find means to deliver the "play" I think is at play there. 

It's unfortunate that it should be this formalized. But it's not about "computation". It's that there's an inner sense and play that's not so explicit and not easily heard from the text only. I imagine this sense would be more obvious were it a play that was acted, with tones of voices  and gestures which would hint more to the interconnections between former and latter "lines" of speech. The formalization is only for the purpose that the word might become flesh, or the form deliver the content of sense, affect, effect, meaning, gesture, attitude, joke, intention, the expressive form in any case...    

Accepting some work to perform is to lift at fixed pay. (Sub. P)
Achieving (Ob.) while Others (Sub. as others) lifting / Should (Ob. Sh) be cause for deserving fame. (Ob. Des / Ob. Fa)
Those who don't lift (Ob.) have leisure (Ob. Le). Leisure tempts (Ob. Tem) excitement (Ob. Ex.) seeking.

Others (Sub. as others) now feel temptations (Sub. Tem) call. ["others" tempted in turn implies their leisure (Sub. Le) now]

["Excitement's (Sub. Ex.) Crave"]

Sacramento should (Sub. Sh.) make an offer
To make a movie (Sub. Fa) of my life
That will pay (Sub. P2) for my planned exile

Your East Area Rapist
And deserving (Sub. De) pest

[justasking]

I think I just mention the general sense I've primarily sensed from the poem, the one I've come to doubt exactly. So that it shouldn't be thought that my interpretation is my only one, or something I arrived at hastily. It was exactly that I didn't arrive at it hastily. It took much time from me to see other interpretations too. So my interpretation in this thread (which itself won't remain the same) is not the primary suggestion or my failure to see it otherwise. But the impression I've gotten from the poem primarily and held for a long time seems to be in accordance with the general one in its main "gist". But I've come to think about other possibilities too. Starting with the thought that it may not be his immediate "self-expression", after all. Still I'd hope to give here the primary interpretation I've had for some time, explicated to show what it is that has began to "change" relatively late on, lest I'd give the wrong supeficial impression that my recent suggestions were something immediate without any contrasted considerations on my part (to show "where I'm coming from"). What I'll explicate about my impression of the poem is something I myself think to be the "general view", not always as elaborated as it is to be here - but still the general idea, sentiment and attitude of the poem is often and usually seen in the same vein as has been my own impression, which I'll describe, quickly (edit: literally also, there may be typos I won't have patience now to check) and generally:

I've always read the poem as the author's immediate expression of self, a poetic expression of his inner world. On the theme of the mindless birth which brought the individual here, who grows up to raise doubts and questions of self-worth and how he is "recognized" in terms of his "value" and "purpose" by others in general. The uncertainty of what he should do. On the antagonism between the individual and the "prevailing" society of others, and the individual's imposition of his own self, "oneself", against the mass-like generality of society that doesn't grant the individual his true "worth". The indecision and alienation from the "task" of choosing values, a task those prevailing others impose on the individual, for whom it becomes "a task", not only in the sense of something he is told he must do by the others, but also in the sense that it is too hard, difficult, confusing. The antagonism between the "more powerful" society and the individual leads to the conviction and individuation of the subject's satisfaction of his own, the reclaimed agency who chooses his own plans and resulting actions, being his own "master" as opposed to the prevailing society. And what he chooses to do due to his own willing will lead him through his chosen road towards the "unmasking", the revelation of his true quintessence, to the authentic image of whis true "Worth", according to the actions due to his own willing and choice, which now has shifted the measure of "worth" from the "prevailing" master, society, to the individual himself who through this "unmasking" will have finally dictated and defined the worth in his own terms, and not only in "word" but in the "flesh" of his action. In this sense, "winning" the society in his own way.

There is the generality of "others" about accepting mundane faceless jobs with no incentive for anything better, but who are "kept in place" with the never-fulfilled "promise for more". The dependence on that "promise" is desperate to the subject of the poem, and he views from his outside point of view what "is" being recognized by others as social norms in addition to their futile hope for "more"; decorum as the appropriate rules for their behavior, as the taming model imposed on them. "Seeking lore" as a futile order or strive to achieve more knowledge, perhaps knowledge which might lead to some much-needed realization, education... all these futile also in terms of true fulfillment. Achieving while others lifting as the rising above, above the robotic, lifting mass-dream where those futile hopes are still entertained, imposed and obeyed in form of recognized norms. The rising above this as the cause for deserving fame, as the master over slaves, in a sense. Leisure might be more conrete metaphor for emptiness of life. Nothing to do with free time, but no idea about what to do with life either - or what "life" even is. This uncertainty and not-knowing, being left to one's own devices (although it was something the subject himself had wanted when he arrived at the oppositional conviction of: "oneself must seek satisfaction" implying that "one's own devices" was exactly what was valuable to him, the devices being plans and actions which would have led him to his own truth about himself) leads to the temptations to seek excitement. Temptation is something outside himself, something alien to him which lures and tempts, teases, forces - him to seek excitement, which was the titular word.

It all finally comes down to the transgressive rapture of "excitement" that drives him, and ironically he could be said is possessed by this driving force although simultaneously it should be the revelation of his authentic mastery over his own self and his own destiny. Maybe that's why "selected route" or "planned exile" are passive-sounding imperfects? He has selected and planned, according to his self-mastery, but they are also something that he just finds to be something already "happened", echoing some sense of a predestination. He finds himself on his "selected" route after the fact of the route having been selected, and some "planned" exile is waiting for him, and perhaps he has no control over the what "has been planned" - even though simultaneously they should be precisely signs of his own self-mastery. He views the recognition given to those criminals who have "prevailed" over the society (which was prevailing over the subject himself) in their own ways, and so given the fame they deserved due to their "achievement". Now the subject himself feels "tempted" to search after fame in the footsteps of these famed exampleries of criminal power and fame, and the word "tempt" here echoes what already had reared its head due to leisure. Feeling those temptations call again refers to the same sense of being driven by them, the temptations have authority over him and "call" him. Now that we have the element of recognition and fame, these temptations of excitement are blended with this search for a measure of worth that penetrated the poem from the beginning already. Now he claims that Sacramento as the represenation of that "society" (tables turned when it comes to who "prevail") should give him his due recognition and fame, make him famed as exemplified by a "movie", and which (as opposed to fixed pay) will pay for his planned exile in the currency of his Worth. Adding the wife of a Mafia lord to his file is again about oppositional thrill: Mafia is danger and Lord is authority. He hopes for a dangerous, thrilling confrontation with an authority. The "wife" here is the symbolic mediator between, the "score" of the battle, the prize, the conquest from the authority. To conquer is to win. This danger of the struggle against a dangerous authority then just adds to the measure of his own worth, of now himself being himself the "prevailing one", even over someone so prevailing as a "Mafia lord", so the subject himself must then be a truly "prevailing" if he manages to add the wife to his "collection" of conquests, since Mafia lord, the dangerous authority is a criminal who may be viewed in his own way to prevail over the already mentioned "prevailing society" - even higher up the ladder of worth, then - and if the subject of the poem manages to "win" over the Mafia lord, then he by proxy has truly "prevailed" over the society. The deserving pest in signature, because he has become the deserving one, he has proved his "worth" when he has prevailed the prevailing society, and become a "pest" to the society, pest deserving nevertheless since the society has to "give Devil his due", since it's deserved. See you in the press or on T.V., echoing "seen by all", as the final conviction that he will indeed be recognized by others.

...And this is what I'm questioning (starting with the question: is it even an immediate self-expression to begin with, and also due to some other structural reasons / doubts I have), as I'm potentially replacing the here explicated (my) primary impression and interpretation with some new ones such as the rudimentary and unsatisfactory OP of this thread. I just think the here descibed elaboration may not be the correct one. It would be only obvious if it was, but it may not be and should possibly be reconsidered. I think the above content of my former impression and interpretation may have been about my preconceived notions. May not be, but could be. It may be wrong in some major way, and that's what I try to consider.

[justasking]

And in continuation, I'll paste some recent (meta-)considerations about the poem and the letter and the interpretation.

Poetry isn't always about one's immediate expression of one's immediate subjective sentiments. Poem is not always "Sturm und Drang" roaring straight from the soul. Of course, vocabularies used et cetera may hint at psychic investment by the author in words or expressions he chooses and uses, and every literary composition can be viewed from that perspective too. But when composing a poem, the author may do so with thoughtful reflection. He may think about the structure and "message" of the poem rationally, in a sense. It still doesn't compromise the intended impression the poem is set out to give to the readers, which the author himself may at least had in mind. 

What I mean by an "immediate expression" would be the kinds of poems young people are prone to write. Expressing their subjective feelings about the world and about themselves in a more direct way. Granted, literary and poetry always conveys the author's or composers subjective viewpoints, sentiments, impressions, emotions - and even thoughts. That's why they begin to write to begin with. But when we think of a novelist or a playwriter, for example, who are hoping to touch on certain themes, to convey certain senses, give certain impressions - they still have it as their task to think about it, to compose it properly. It is their craft, even if overladen with great psychic (emotions or thoughts alike) investments in any manner.

My "experimental" view to the poem 'Excitement's Crave' has to do with this scenario. It is easy for us to think that a serial rapist would write a poem that was an immediate expression, sort of a straightforward "attack" of his own inner world against the readers. I think we easily read the poem without thought, other than the thoughts of our own that arise from our impression of the supposed immediate expression from the criminal author. I think the author's possible process of "mediation" isn't taken into account often enough in this case. The extratextual fact that he set out to write the poem on a typewriter, made it into 3 separate letters he sent to to 3 different addresses, all of which are referenced in the poem (Mayor's office: "Sacramento should...",  Newspaper, TV) shows that there was already a mediated connection between outside and inside factors when it came to the content of the poem. His writing and sending of the poem was already a certain kind of an act and a performative gesture. There is already some sense of "theatre" there.

To put those references of three different extratextual addressees to be found from the poem itself demonstrates that the author is able to "calculate" effects of his composition. There is a certain cleverness which may be left unnoticed. It's expectable that a serial criminal would choose these three addresses. Or like Zodiac, say: "see you in the press or on TV". But there is a "sardonic" effect at play there, when the author doesn't out the references to all the different addressees all together. When he has put some temporal contrast and momentum to it, as there is first the: "Sacramento should make an offer" - and then the composition continues, until only at the end this pair of two other addresses is referenced cynically, as the "final nail" to the act. The author already in that way demonstrates that he has understanding for "composites" exactly, for situation of parts to the whole, to all serve the greater effect of the whole.

There is time in the poem. Explicitly it is seen and easily confirmed. But still the sense of it may remain vague. Because it is a communication from a serial rapist, the poem is also thought to be a communication from the serial rapist in the sense that it is his immediate speech. So if he presents us with an image of time flowing forward, we get the impression of him reciting the flow of time while he still remains at the immediate moment, that he is describing time supra-temporally. Like if a person in some immediate moment recounted a memory, or told some fact of history. If he is about to present us with immediate statements or sentiments later on in the poem, we will retroactively view the previous recounting of time in terms of the statement now made, or the sentiment expressed. We'll see the time of the poem contained in the immediate center. The other way to look at it would be to view or to sense it vice versa; the immediate sentiments or statements that are about to be expressed or made, which seem to take the central stage, can be considered as themselves contained in the time of the poem. Instead of the retrospective consideration of the recited time now viewed as the succession with which the upcoming immediate moment begins to begin itself until becoming explicit, but to see this immediate moment as belonging to the succession itself as a result.

Trouble is, to repeat, that it is a communication from a serial rapist who references to himself explicitly in the poem, "identifies" himself in the poem. To have this situation where the narrator makes a statement to the effect that he is the author (in sense of "breaking the fourth wall"), is to be presented with a problem of interpretation. Since it is a textual poem which was also simultaneously an extratextual letter, we now understandably come to view the voice of the 'East Area Rapist' in the poem in terms of the extratextual letter, instead of in terms of the poem's own inside world. And of course, this interactive play between the actual outside performance of the letter plays an obvious role in the poem. An example was already presented with the references made in the poem to all those three actual addressees of the letter.  Let's call both the poem and the letter generally as the "act". The act as a whole was the "gestural" composition. But where does the line go between what the poem "means" and the gesture as a whole?

Even if it's an objective fact (as we here take it to be) that the author of the poem and so the sender of the letter was the concrete individual who committed the crimes due to which he "earned" the public moniker: 'East Area Rapist', as indicated by the circumstamcial evidence; what "justifies" or necessitates our interpretation of the situation as such that it was properly a communication from this concrete individual, in the sense that he was communicating "himself" with the letter and the poem? Even if the concrete person behind the act of sending and authoring was the referenced "protagonist" of the act - it still doesn't necessarily translate into the concrete person as an actual first-person inside the poem, in the sense that this actual person to whom the moniker was given to would have to have used the said moniker in his writing descriptively as his own "identification", turning his written words into a statement made by him from the position of the concrete individual, and so turning the impressive literary narrator into an expressive concrete author. 

To illustrate it more simply, let's take the phenomenon of cameo roles or appearances in the movies. When one "plays himself" as a cameo, does he actually represent himself as a concrete individual? Concrete in the sense of him "in real life", as this differentation is usually expressed? Already the indecision apparent in the use of both "role" and "appearance" to refer to 'cameo' points out this ambiguity. Is it the concrete person who appears in the movie, as a sort a rupture of fiction into which the "real life" bleeds - or is it a self-referential role which relies on this effect of dynamic relation between fiction and reality; still a "role" nevertheless, as the cameo appearance has been set into a fictional context and so these "glimpses" at "real life" are still fictionally perceived, according to the perspective necessarily chosen by the surrounding fiction. When it comes to a 'cameo': do we actually say that "he himself" was in the movie, or do we readily understand the structural impossibility of a "real reality" thrown into fiction? The latter tends to be the case. We understand the difference.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that the 'East Area Rapist' of the poem could be a 'cameo' of sorts. One "preconceived notion" would be the unfounded and immediate typification or classification of the act (of both the poem and the letter) as belonging to what would be categorically expected. We have the precedent of Zodiac letters, for example. We have come to expect that, when a serial offender sends a communicative artefact to his chosen addressees, he would do so the represent himself in a concrete way. Like we have read in connection to the said precedent: "This is the Zodiac speaking". The Zodiac killer himself, despite the strong red herring element, defines the "genre" from the beginning of the letter. It is his speech that is to follow. His personal communicative statement.

The act of sending this poem as a letter, in addition to what is said in the poem's "signature" at the end, gives us an impression of a Zodiac-like action. We go with what is expected and classify the act of 'Excitement's Crave' by the East Area Rapist as belonging to the class of communicative statements. "See you in the press or on T.V" is the last sentence of the EC. Doesn't that sentence have a sound of a praphrase to it, bordering on being a direct quote from a Zodiac letter? In the literal sense of what is taken to belong to a certain type from our point of view, it is our typical impression that this similarity of appearance translates into a corresponding intention. That the outwardly similar message has the same function also.

What is the sender of the letter, the author of the poem doing there? Is it an imitation, in the sense that the actor here has assumed a similar conveyance for a similar function, for the "same" purpose, as his model? Was he completely oblivious to the fact that this sort of an utterance belonged to what already at that point (1977) would be taken to be a "canonical" mark of such rare (but still typified) occurence of a communicative statement made by a serial offender? Was he being a "copycat" of this typical scheme? It is possible, of course, and an assumption already implicit to the classification of the poem as a communicative statement, when considered in its historical context. But other assumptions are possible too. Although, they are not assumptions in the sense of having been immediately taken for granted. The point here is precisely to reconsider what seems to be easily taken as a "given". Still, every viewpoint to the poem necessarily consists of assumptions in the sense that the accuracy of the viewpoint can't be estimated with certainty, due to the absence of validation by the original actor who would be the only one able to point out his (conscious) original intention.

We are now on the topic and the question of whether we should regard the letter-poem in form of "speech" by and from the concrete individual who was the agent of sending the letter and writing the poem, or if we might also consider the possibility that he was "playing" a literary "role" which on the level of descriptive denomination corresponded to the concrete reality, and in such way that this actual correspondence of literary denomination to the concrete one added to the literary effect - in a similar vein as the phenomenon of 'cameo' roles/appearances.

From the content of the poem we can see how the poem connects itself thematically to the question of "fame". The fame is exemplified in the poem by references to actually "famed" (one etymological sense of the word 'fame' is "talk" - "being talked about" as the definitional guarantee for "being famous" is the basis on which I will categorize the content  in my use of the words "fame" and "famous" in this connection) criminals: "Jessie James" and "Son of Sam". Their famous status is implied in the elaborations: (Jessie James) "...has been seen by all" and (Son of Sam) "...has an author". This serves to demonstrate the connection made by the poem to the theme of "famous criminals".

The theme of "criminal fame" pertains to individuals such as Son of Sam also in the sense of the generally known "public" interactions between serial offenders and the media. As had already been the case years earlier with the publication of Zodiac letters by media, the media had also published some of the letters that were sent by the Son of Sam during his crime spree. This "giving of fame" to the Son of Sam letters by the media was a contemporary occurrence which had taken place months earlier. The letters were still being discussed among other aspects of the widely publicized 'Son of Sam' case, during the time when the poem EC was received.

The demonstrated fact of the author's knowledge about the criminal known as "Son of Sam" is a simultaneous proof of his (the author's) conscious connection to the wider extratextual context regarding the phenomenon of "famous criminals". His thematic reference to the "Son of Sam" in the poem is in connection to a reality outside the poem. We know that the author is discussing "reality" in this sense. After referencing the fame given to Jesse James and Son of Sam, the poem goes on to mention those "others" who "now feel temptations call". From this mention of "others", the poem immediately continues on to make the statement: "Sacramento should make an offer", which in turn is given the content of: "To make a movie of my life". At this point the narrator has become the first person 'I', as is evident by the first person possessive expression: "my life".

Literary comprehension is always needed to understand what is being conveyed, but the reference to "others" who "now feel temptations call" seems to function as a moderately explicit effect in the structure of the poem to indicate that the upcoming 'I' who is demanding that a movie should be made of "his life" belongs to those "others" who were mentioned immediately before and had been defined as "others" in contrast to both "Jesse James" and "Son of Sam". The 'I' as an other to Jesse James or Son of Sam. And since it was the theme of fame given to these explicitly mentioned criminals that was in question, the line: "Others now feel temptations call" has the sense of these "others" striving after what has been given to the mentioned criminals. In both meanings: others are tempted to commit crimes, but this temptation has to do with the fact of fame given to those two explicitly mentioned precedents (Jesse James and Son of Sam) who served as personified examples of the general phenomenon of giving fame to criminals. In a sense, the "temptation" of those "others", mentioned immediately after, is implied to be due to the fact of fame given to criminals. This message belongs inside the poem.

After the line: "Others now feel temptations call" inside the poem comes the statement: "Sacramento should make an offer". Now we may again recall the actual context outside the text. The poem was sent in three separate letters to three different addressees. One of those addressees was the Sacramento mayor's office. As the statement inside the poem is addressed to "Sacramento", we may see a metonymic relation at play when we consider the mayor of Sacramento as the representative of Sacramento as a whole. When this relation is taken into consideration, the act of addressing "Sacramento" in a statement made inside the poem is in an extratextual reference to the actual act of sending the letter to the Sacramento mayo's office, which took place outside the poem but still in the context of the poem as an artefact. So, in this sense, the "fourth wall" of the poem is broken. But nevertheless, this reference still belongs inside the poem and wasn't voiced in the immediate form of communicative "speech" by the author. For example, the word "offer" with which the "Sacramento"-line (and thus, the statement made) ends seems to have been chosen with the intention of  having it rhyme with the word "author" which had come previously.  We are securely inside the poem still. The content of the poem here references the extratextual context, but this in turn doesn't turn the literary form of the poem into an actual form of communicative speech, and hence; isn't enough to turn the 'narrator' of the poem into the 'author' of the poem in the sense of turning the poem into a "real life" expression, even in terms of the "statement" in question.

The poem still moves in the literary realm as the first person 'I' arrives explicitly for the first time in the poem and in a sense "identifies" himself as the one who made the statement addressing Sacramento. "To make a movie of my life" was the content of the "should" given to Sacramento, and served in effect as the self-identification of the 'I' who now craves that a movie be made of his life. The succeeding lines from this point on still have this same 'I' as their subject. This is the 'I' easily taken to be "speaking" (similarily to Zodiac) instead of a narrative, literary 'I'. The assumption that the 'I' of the poem had the nature of "speech" is partly grounded on the poem's "signature", and so the question of this signature should be elaborated on.

The "signature" as the poem's ending, in its entirety, reads: "Your East Area Rapist / And deserving pest / See you in the press or on T.V." Let's first note how this signature is put in the poetic meter of a tercet. Secondly, there is still a seemingly intended rhyme between the words "rapist  and "pest". We may take this to be the signature to his letter, but it is also  simultaneously evident that it still belongs inside the poem. If we have it as our premise that the writer of the poem and the sender of the letter was indeed the concrete individual who committed the crimes due to which he was given the moniker 'East Area Rapist', then it is clear that the self-identification in the signature is in reference to this actual denomination, connecting the writing to the factual context. This makes the 'East Area Rapist' into a signature for the letter, to the degree that there is a correspondence of the signed "name" in form of a moniker to the actual denomination given to the concrete writer extratextually, "in reality". But it still doesn't necessitate the nature of the 'I' in the poem as a gesture of direct communicative "speech", nor turn the narrator into the author.

Similarily as the actual, extratextual Sacramento mayor's office as an addressee of the letter had been chosen by the author to also serve a literary role inside the poem, the 'I' who identifies himself as the 'East Area Rapist' in the signature (succeedingly after the assumption of the explicit first person perspective had taken place in the poem) may have a literary role too. The fact that the author was actually the concrete person whose identity is assumed in the signature by the 'I' of the poem isn't grounds to exclude the possibility of a literary nature of the said identification or the literary, narrative nature of the 'I' inside the poem (as the 'I' is retrospectively given the implicit "reality" due to the degree of "reality" contained in the signature). To represent oneself fictionally is a real possibility, as is the case with the cinematic 'cameo' appearances.

The final assumption of an actual "identity" in the poetic quasi-signature serves retrospectively to give this actual identity to the previous 'I' of the poem as well. And so now the concrete person of 'East Area Rapist' comes to be viewed as implicit to every (assumably) implicit indication or explicit utterance of 'I' inside the poem. It becomes speech, like the Zodiac speaks. So it only suits us to have the poem end with the Zodiac-like: "See you in the press or on T.V.", which also of course seems to be written in a further reference to the extratextual fact that the poem-letter in question was sent to a newspaper and a TV station as well, in addition to the Sacramento mayor's office. Thus we have all the three different addressees of the actual letter addressed or referenced inside the poem (the content of the letter) itself. It would seem to be an expression of EAR's direct "speech", then. Why the poem though? A poem is by definition a piece of literary writing. Where does the "literary" end and the "literal" begin here?

Since the signature referred to an actual, extratextual "real life" denomination that was descriptive of the assumably actual author of the poem (EAR), after which we gave this identity as the retrospective content to the subject and the voice of the poem as a whole, we now come to read the poem from "end to beginning", in a sense. When, for example, it is said previously in the poem that Sacramento should make an offer to make a movie of "his" life, we read it as the EAR saying this from his actual subject position. We may not read it as him saying that this is literallywhat he hopes for "in real life", reading it as a sort of a poetic gesture instead, but still we think it's him who acts out this gesture through the poem. We don't think about the possibility that he might have written himself into a character, a character regardless of the narrative 'I'. Let's consider authors, novelists, who write their books using the first person narrative 'I'. The identity of these authors doesn't actually correspond to their narrative first person characters in "real life", obviously. The matter is more complicated when we have the explicitly stated first person denomination inside the text correspond to the extratextual denomination that is descriptive of the actual author (EAR) in "real life". But some authors have even used it as a playful literary device to break down the "fourth wall" in terms of their "own" authoral identity breaking through in the text, and this doesn't mean that it wasn't still imaginary nevertheless. Often it may be on the opposite: the act of a real life author "implicating" himself inside his own  text may only serve to give us the impression that this "identification" is entirely non-literal in nature, precisely due to the unbelievable distance and the incommensurability between what is a literary narrator in fiction and the actual author in "real life". Like said, the use of this literary technique may often be playful in nature; sort of a parody of identity, not to be taken literally as an expression of direct "speech" by the author. The cinematic 'cameo' phenomenon may also be stressed here again as an analogy.

This pertains to the question of the narrative 'I' in the EC poem. Like said, after we have read the signature at the end of the poem and noted the signature correspond to the actual author, the poem becomes read retrospectively in "his" voice. But perhaps the "real" signature itself could be read vice versa in light of what was said in the poem previously. As we remember, the 'I' of the poem belonged to those "others" who felt the "temptations call" in the exemplary footsteps of Jesse James and Son of Sam. If we now read this in light of the signature and everything seemingly implicit to it, we have the actual EAR saying that he feels the temptations call. But we also have the actual EAR referencing Son of Sam, for example. And as the theme at this point was "famous criminals", it seems that the EAR himself is now similarily seeking out such infamy. And this is taken to be what he "says" at this point, if not literally, then at least poetically.

Why do we read it as if he was here, like everywhere else in the poem, "speaking out" something about his inner states and motivations, even if through poetry as his chosen form speech? It is in great part due to the ambiguous double nature of this communication as a letter and a poem simultaneously, and due to the poetic quasi-signature which seems to intermediate between these two categories. His act of sending the letter with the obviously assumable intention of gaining publicity seems to validate our impression that he is indeed "speaking out" and expressing his inner states and aims through the poem. What is written in the literary poem matches what he did with the actual letter which contained the poem, so we might have good reason to think that the poem was a literary medium through which the EAR nevertheless presents us with his actual immediate "speech" or a "statement". Poem's content as a reflection of the actuality of sending the letter, this may be our impression. But why? Let's note that it would be circular to now refer to what seems to be implied in the poem about his quest for infamy, since that was exactly the view which was already traced back to this question. And, in a way, this correspondence of the poem's content to the actuality of sending the letter is exactly the questionable aspect here, and adds to the weight of the question. 

What I implicitly and experimentally contested here was the impression to the effect that the literary poem's content should be a reflection of the actual act of sending the letter, which in turn would vice versa turn the act of sending the letter into an evidential validation for the assumption that the poem's content had a mirroring relation to the actuality of the author and his acts and life in general. But the inverse scenario may also be considered: the actual act of sending the letter as reflective of the literary poem's content. Validation of the literary content with the actual act.

Only after receiving the artefact as a letter can we read it as a poem contained within. This actual structure of the situation may hasten our resulting impression in regards to what we perceive as having been the intentional structure of the agent who both wrote the poem and sent the letter. We may come under the impression of a certain primacy there was to the poem itself for the agent, and so view the act of sending the letter as the secondary means of delivering this literary piece which in its content was the primary factor, the "main point" of the act. That's why we, in the case of EC, may come to interpret the situation in such way that when, for example, we read the ending line of the poem: "See you in the press or on T.V." , we will view it as a primary expression by the EAR of his desire to be publicized by the media, something he authentically strived for.  And now that he has sent the poem to the media, to a newspaper and a TV station both, it seems to have been a natural continuation of his intention, the primary intention of gaining media publicity as was seemingly expressed as an authentic desire in the said last line of the poem. The primary intention of  trying to have the media give publicity to his dear poem which he wrote to express himself and sent out as the representative mediation of himself as an 'I'. 

So what would be the inverse interpretation of the situation? It would be to consider the possibility that the status of primacy was given to the act of sending the letter, and not to the poem. Then we will see how it would be equally natural to write the poem in light of this intended act, and to have the poem touch on the theme of fame he was striving after, and to have the poem end in the tercet containing the signature which ends the poem with the statement referencing the extratextual situation with the "press" and "T.V.". Acting out of this intentional structure, he would have already from the beginning set out to write the poem with consideration for the act of sending it to the media. He wouldn't have sat down to write a poem that served as a literary but nevertheless an authentic form of his self-expression or his "speech" to the public from his actual and authentic subject position of the 'I'. The thematic concerns of the poem would be chosen this act in mind, to suit the act. And the entire content of the poem would be implicitly situated in the context and, should we say, "genre" of the "communication from a fame-hungry serial criminal".

Like has been mentioned, the Zodiac letters had already been publicized years earlier at the time of the poem's appearance in 1977. Son of Sam, who is explicitly mentioned in the poem, was a current phenomenon at that time. He too had sent letters to the police and the media. So we could say that there was already something typical and typified to this scenario at the time of writing and sending of the EC. This "typical" scenario was already available to use as a literary and "theatrical" schema at that point in time, and simultaneously it was still something fresh - making the theme fresh also.  Should we, only by virtue of him actually being a serial criminal, confidently conclude that he was actually and authentically only following the "tradition" of communicative serial criminals, as a specimen of that new generation of "others" who now hungrily for fame wished to communicate and "speak"  in the same manner as was usual to some of those previous "famous" serial criminals? The fact that he actually was a serial criminal doesn't exclude the possibility that he was intentionally "playing a part" when he presented himself through the poem and the letter as belonging to that "communicative" sort. The fact that he was a serial criminal indeed would make it somewhat expected and typical to have him present the media and a public institution with a communication that signalled authentic intention. But that's the "joke". This would give him the context for acting out the role of theatrical compliance with the typical expectation.

When we consider the Zodiac letters and read the last line of the EC's poetic quasi-signature (which by the same token is the last line of the entire poem), there is some resonance between the two. One could even take the statement: "See you in the press or on T.V." to function as a sort of an intentional intertextual paraphrase, only adding to the suspicious typicality of the act. Or, like said, he could have been a "copycat" of this manner of communication. What would seem most plausible? Him (the EAR) being oblivious to the typicality and the imitative nature of his act, or him being imitative on purpose? If he was being imitative on purpose (as I here theorize), this would have bearing on the question of his intentions and the interpretation of the poem. For him to be able to have this sort of a performative, intentional paraphrase to exemplify his awareness of the typicality of the gesture, he would have had to think about the poem in terms of ideas. There would be mediation at play in the poem, instead of the poem having been written as an immediate expression of his self. It would be a consciously chosen dramatic role that is conveyed by the narrative 'I' of the poem, and not his authentic "speech". It would be precisely an imaginary literary representation of his "speech", in the fictional poetic form written by him. This would mean he could write himself into a character. And the question of the "genre" and the true interpretation of the poem remains open as we can now consider him to have been thinking reflectively about the message, the "meaning" and the effectual structure of the poem in narrative terms, and consider him having invested some conscious ideas into the poem - as opposed to him having been somehow restricted by the fact of the correspondence of his actual denominational identity to the narrative 'I' of the poem, and to him having been chained to his thundering urge to "express himself" directly as he was composing the poem so that these sentiments inside the poem should be reflective of his (for example; "fame-hungry") person, which would have excluded the now opened possibility that they were more conscious in composition and "playful" in content - playful in all senses, the sense of a theatrical "play" among them as a preliminary suggestion for the poem's "genreic" tendencies.

We may now go back to the topic of how the signature belonging to the ending tercet of the poem and the act of sending the letter served to give us the retrospective impression that the 'I' who had appeared in the poem already before the signature should have this authentic and actual identity of the East Area Rapist as its implicit content, turning what was narrated in the poem from the literary prespective of 'I' into a form of "speech" by the EAR himself.

Whereas the correspondence of the denominational identity of the actual agent (who was both the author and the sender of the letter) to the literary signature at the end of the poem via the moniker 'East Area Rapist' was our reason to interpret the narrative 'I' in the poem as a representation of speech by the actual agent from his authentic subject position, which in turn gave the interpretative color to the rest of the preceding poem in its entirety, we may now consider the other possibility too. The possibility of the agent assuming the literary role of "himself". This would turn the poem into a properly literary piece that is to be read successively in terms of the composition, leading all the way up to the tercet where the poetic signature is found. And as the poem is considered to be successive in composition, and the still-rhyming ending tercet is with good reason regarded as still belonging to the poem, our interpretation has to contain some elaboration on how the poem and the previously appeared narrative 'I' in themselves lead up to the "signature" in terms of literary effect, as opposed to having the signature inversely lead "down" to the narrative 'I' of the poem, and so to the poem in its entirety.

The signature is the most explicit extratextual reference to the actual reality of the situation outside the poem, as the moniker presented in the signature assumably "matches" the actual individual agent, the concrete person who authored the poem, in accordance with and due to the fact that this moniker had actually been given to him due to his actual actions in reality. But why should this formal explicit actuality be taken as an actuality in terms of the content? Like said, this explicit "reality" of the signature is easily intuited to bleed into the literary lines that came before the signature in the poem. But instead of the "reality" of the signature retrospectively bleeding into the previous literary lines and turning them into implicitly "real" utterances, we may intuit the opposite option just as well: we may see the "literary" nature of the poem's preceding lines bleed into the succeeding signature and give it a "literary" content despite the signature's formal correspondence to reality. We may see the signature as a result of the literary development inside the poem.

And the signature may actually derive its literary effect precisely due to the reason that it functions as the "intersection" of what is literary and what is actual.

But the irony of "Being East Area Rapist" in "real life" is that it isn't his personal identity to begin with. His actual person is "unidentified" in any case. How do we surmise the actual degree of his authentic "relatedness" or "attachment" to the moniker given to him? Does he truly "identify" with it, or could he just as well assume this non-identity of "his" moniker playfully, without actually having his "self" invested in this non-identification? This, of course, can't be determined. But the question only illustrates the vague and uncertain setting for the interpretative endeavour in terms of the poem's "who".

[cityofchill]

It's great to see new members discussing the poem in such a thoughful way. I've really enjoyed reading the analyses put forward by members over the last few months, and the vigorous debate about meaning and authorship.

I continue to believe the poem is important, that it was likely written by the perpetrator of the crimes, and that there are important insights into the offender's mindset, motivations, values, and even biography to be gleaned from its lines. I don't have the time or energy lately to finish the line-by-line analysis I started three years ago when no one had yet done a deep dive into the poem. With new members doing their own deep dives and coming to the surface with thought-provoking insights, I feel like the poem is getting the full treatment it deserves as bright minds take its analysis to new levels.

I feel like I failed by not finishing my analysis, by not going back and re-writing my inital posts, when I wasn't fully committed to understanding the poem and approached it with a half-assed effort. I never finished my analysis of the second half of the poem, which includes some of its most intriguing and revealing lines. Now that other members have approached it with a high level of scutiny and attention to detail, I don't feel that failure as acutely because others have taken up the torch, so to speak, and opened up the discussion in ways I wasn't capable of.

It's exciting to read these insights and debates about Excitement's Crave. I look forward to reading more in the future.

[justasking]

I might still try to elaborate a little on the 'Excitement's Crave' as a phrase.

"To crave" (a verb) in the sense of "desiring" etc. amounts to a "craving" (a noun)

But:

"To crave" (a verb) in the sense of "requesting, demanding" amounts to a "crave" (a noun) (the sense of the word which has been preserved in Scottish law, at least - the peculiarity here would have to do with the question: how did the author come upon the noun 'crave' used in this sense? It could be telling)

'Excitement's Crave' would be "excitement's request/demand". A 'crave' is something that can be sent in a letter, like the poem with the title 'Excitement's Crave' was sent in a letter. A 'crave' is a request or a demand about something that the addressee of the crave "should" do, just like the addressee "Sacramento" (when we consider the Sac mayor as the representative) is addressed in the poem-letter with the "should". So, this occurrence of a "should" addressed to Sacramento as the actual addressee of the letter amounts exactly to a 'crave' (a noun). The gesture of the poem-letter functions as a 'crave', and the crave can be found from inside the poem titled 'Excitement's Crave' as its turning moment, when there's a shift from the descriptive outside point of view to the first-person point of view ("to make a movie of my life") - in some sense, this turning moment could be seen as representing the shift from the poem into the letter. It's exactly the 'crave': "Sacramento should make an offer" that functions in the intratextual content as the intermediary between the artefact's nature as both a poem and a letter. It would make perfect sense to give the poem-letter as a whole a title which reflects this moment exactly, and in fact; the title already makes perfect sense in this way, even if it wasn't intended by the author. But it would be so great a coincidence to have this fitting meaning to the title accidentally, that I consider it implausible.

The 'excitement' as a word is mentioned once in the poem, when it's said: "Leisure tempts excitement seeking". And so, leisure presents the 'temptation' to "seek excitement". So, now we may look for the other parts of the poem having to do with 'temptation', and we find one line which says: "Others now feel temptations call". We may consider this later mention of "temptation" to be an echo from the previous line where "leisure tempted excitement seeking". So, the temptation that's felt by those "others" seems to have the implied content of "excitement seeking", and thus this latter temptation also is related to "excitement". But immediately after the "others now feel temptations (for excitement seeking) call", comes the crave: "Sacramento should make an offer". The momentum here connects the 'excitement' (as the object of temptation) to the crave: "Sacramento should make an offer". And so it becomes the "excitement's crave". Nowhere in the poem is a "craving" for excitement mentioned, only the "temptation" of excitement. Of course, the associative implicit sense may be that of a "craving" for excitement, too. But this associative sense only gives more playful color to the actual sense of a "crave" ("Sacramento should make an offer") that is made by "excitement", that comes from "excitement", or is presented by "excitement". The 'crave' is completely open to our view, when we consider the 'crave' as a noun which signifies "request" or "demand". It's something that is found from the poem. Perhaps already the author himself consciously muddied the waters with perfect knowledge that the "crave" as a word will be associated primarily with the verb "crave" or a noun "craving".

So, there is no explicit mention of "crave" or "craving" whatsoever in the poem. But there is still a central line with the implicit sense of a 'crave': "Sacramento should make an offer". But excitement itself isn't exactly "craved for" in the poem. And it wouldn't be a craving possessed by the object 'excitement' in that case, as we all know. It is a temptation to seek excitement, which of course may implicitly have the sense of a "craving". But to have the verb "crave" (in the sense of craving) in the title, incorrectly used as a noun (and invertedly possessed by the object) seems improbable when we consider how the turning moment of the poem actually is a 'crave' (a noun) as a request and demand. It's a very lucky coincidence if the author was using a grammatically incorrect form in the title for his intended meaning, but in such way that it still simultaneously ended up being undeniably correct in form and perfectly fitting to the poem's content when read in a different sense. The crave by excitement; "excitement's crave". It just seems so obvious, and this completely valid meaning of the phrase 'EC' is there in any case, regardless of whether the author intended it or not. To me, it just seems too implausible to have some unintentional coincidence to explain this actual validity of the seemingly obscure, grammatically messed up title.   

We may consider the weighing fact that one of the addressees of the letters containing the poem was Sacramento mayor's office. Obviously, the mayor is a representative of Sacramento, and there is a metonymic relation between them. So, to address "Sacramento" with a 'crave' in the poem is to address one of the actual addressees. This is a further contextual explanation for the word 'crave' in the title. In addition to being the title of the poem, it is also the title of the letter sent to "Sacramento". Since the 'crave' in the poem is presented to Sacramento as the actual addressee of the letter, the actual fact is that the poem-letter functions as a "crave" that was sent. It is this act of addressing which gives both extratextual and intratextual meaning to the poem's titular word 'crave', since the poem is also a letter which "craves" Sacramento (mayor's office) "...to make a movie of my life". For lack of a better term, we could call this act (of sending the 'crave' in the form of a poem as a letter) "bureaucratic carnivalism".   

All in all, the EC's double nature as both a poem and a letter may be easily forgotten, but it shouldn't. We should notice that the poem also acts and functions extratextually as a gesture of letter that was sent. It's not just that the poem was sent inside the letter, but that the poem also is the letter - as can be seen from the "breaking of the fourth wall" by addressing the actual addressee (Sacramento) and the ending tercet which contains the "signature" of the sender of the letter, referring to the other two actual addressees (press + TV). So, why should the titular phrase "Excitement's Crave" be only descriptive of the poem's content? The title may also refer to the function of the letter, to name the letter (containing the poem) as 'Excitement's Crave', and to have the content of the poem serve simultaneously as the content of the letter since the addressees of the letter are addressed inside the poem. The extratextual letter itself is a poem (or the poem a letter) which functions as the 'Excitement's Crave', as opposed to the letter only containing a poem (the intratextual content) that has the descriptive title of 'Excitement's Crave'. That's the definition I seemed to arrive at to demonstrate what I mean.

We shouldn't forget the content of the 'crave' to Sacramento either. "Sacramento should make an offer / To make a movie of my life / That will pay for my planned exile". Of course, this is not something the EAR would actually expect to materialize. It is humorous and poetic, nothing literal. But it's still a 'crave', since the "pursuer craves" Sacramento to make the offer. And the offer is about a movie as a payment. 'Crave', in the Scottish civil law, is "that part of the initial writ which states what the pursuer requires". And these 'craves' often have to do with required payments. The Excitement's Crave states that Sacramento should make an offer to make a movie that would serve as a payment. This seems to be the 'crave' at the core of this poem-letter, and the "excitement" here is the personified pursuer of the crave, making it into an "excitement's crave", although voiced by the 'I' of the East Area Rapist. And in many senses, the poem as a whole has a certain "business law" dimension to it with the talk about "inventory of worth", "fixed pay", "deserving", and then finally the "offer" about a movie as a "payment". In some sense, the poem is like a satirical "legal proceeding" by the author having to do with what's "due" to whom (this characterization is not to be taken too literally) - and in that sense, this 'crave' is also about what's "due" to him ("Sacramento should" offer to pay what's due). In this sense, the "crave" is also a sort of a "collection of debt". I'd say there is some familiarity with legal and business terms going on in the poem. Already the "taking inventory of their worth" is an actual economic expression. It's like the author is having fun with these more vulgar, official or "bureaucratic" expressions when he uses them in such a dramatic, poetic, "existential" context. But I don't know if he intended anyone to notice that, or if it was exactly the point and the joke that they wouldn't.