From my notes (I hope I've captured these accurately):
- Fleisher resists the idea of hybrid as a genre.
- She wonders if it will last and if we (writers) are asking it to do too much (it's defined widely).
- She has trouble with the term coming out of biology and being applied to the spectrum between poetry and prose: frustrating because of polarity.
- She prefers the term transgressive writing.
- Instead of a triangulated product, she embraces gynesis. The horizon: it keeps moving. An extended target. See Alice Jardine.
- She's interested in discourse outside the main discourse. Slippage between genre and gender.
Perhaps the word hybrid is becoming overused, and perhaps we can't agree on a definition as it is applied to writing. Yet, biological speaking: I am hybrid. A mutt. A mongrel. I embrace the hybrid and the biological definition because my body exists between two: to become a third. A loss occurs here; gain also occurs here: culturally, linguistically, etc. I'm less concerned with the polarity between prose/poetry and more concerned with how and where discourses and bodies merge and rupture. The site of de/re/construction. As one who lives a hybrid life, this space is necessary to transgress the imposed boundaries because I am never seen as one or the other. I'm never fully accepted in either camp. Nor am I really seen as both. These outside projections have created an internalized oppression, where I try to assimilate, depending on the context, instead of accepting my monstrous self. Hybrid: problematic as a genre, as it is problematic as a body.
Thanks, Kass, for Skyping in!