incisive interpretation Robert.

The idea about our own intelligence becoming a character here, subjected to a failing of prescience by plot twists is a challenging notion, somewhat difficult to grasp- but interesting.

I also like your point about the poet's use of first person having an ominous quality, carrying the poem beyond critique of business and into a broader territory to illustrate how "'misuse' of language breeds denial, inequality, and manipulation."

When I read the poem, the character seemed quite strongly to me to be the letter itself, whose amorphous author is a representative of some general/fucked up 'business methodology' -very straightforward. The formalities, pleas, narratives, threats and panderings in the poem seemed to me to be a cutting satire of business and little else.

Your point about Eiríkur's allusions to a larger issue of treacherous language is spot on, and I feel that in some ways he broaches this topic but because of the context and format of the poem, I don't feel he escapes or perhaps even intends to escape the confines of G8 protester style.

The subject matter is so loaded, (especially coming out of this crazy decade,) that whatever insights he is trying to create about use of language/lies in a broader sense fail to escape the gravitational tug of his satire.

Especially with the use of the climactic line "I am an offer of sexual favours," he commits to a mode of slander and hyperbole in service of bashing businessmen- which is truly funny- one imagines men in suits fingering each other in boardrooms, (Republicans in restrooms?)

I think its a very smart poem, very creative, and I feel that Norðdahl has built it, perhaps purposefully, with limitations.

Good points, Aaron. I rarely am aware of such "limitations" b/c I think I just assume that they are always present.

How do we become more aware of the constraints that we impose on ourselves subconsciously?

yeah, good question.

Hey guys - I like your thinking.

Just thought I'd poke in with one thing - the poem is of course not written in english, it's written in Icelandic and translated by myself into english. Strangely enough, business is not mentioned in the Icelandic one - a fail on my part in the translation, perhaps and probably - the line "broaches business" is "rekur erindi" in Icelandic, which isn't necessarily business in the capitalist sense, it could just be personal business (for example: "Would you like to see a movie with me") - maybe "drives an errand" would be better, I'm not sure.

What I mean to say - the opening is perhaps a bit more vague in the original.

Erikur, hi. Thanks for 'chiming in'. Of course, what you are saying gives us another issue to deal with -- that of successfully 'translating'. Since I only speak two languages (and I'm not entirely fluent in Spanish by any means), I often think about translation as a sort of reinterpretation from one writer to the next. A lot of my own poetry stems from 'stealing' lines, cutting things, 'google sculpting' (sorry Kasey), etc.

Erikur: "What is done is done." You have made a cool poem and made people think. That's good enough.

Erikur, this is funny. For those who know both languages there are sibling poems, closely related but not altogether alike.

I do think it works well in English with the use of the word 'business' even though there is this idea that the satirical power unleashed might cloud other interpretations. I don't know. My reading of the poem has a lot to do with the times. As an American and having witnessed some of this building frenzy firsthand that has created a slide in world markets, the poem touches on some sensitivities. Its format and its voice, a somewhat shameful and passive aggressive first person sentence that 'broaches business', resonates with the sense of fascination I feel for the grotesque and powerful -world of business-

Anyway, I've enjoyed this introduction to your work and look forward to checking out some more of it in time.

cheers