You can sell authenticity now? Says something about the consumer...that the market is able to homogenize places, goods, and services means that there is a demand for it and that a number of people identify authenticity with static ideas of what is authentic.

Authenticity has an economic incentive. Does this then mean that is about creating more value for oneself in the social market (i.e. people liking you, buying your goods, attributing success to your name)? Are we trying to then prove our authenticity to others? Why?

this is funny because then it becomes the situation where to feel like you are not authentic is when authenticity has come into question...shows what an empty promise authenticity is because from that very moment of questioning our authenticity we have done that most inauthentic thing. To live differently or to learn different ways to become authentic. Begs the question of what it means then to become authentic.

Nothing is intrinsically authentic due to intersubjectivity i.e. that we each have different definitions of what is valuable for different reasons. One thing that is valuable or truly authentic to me could be a sell out and redundant to someone else.

This is an ironic phrase. Searching for something authentic seems stale in that you have produced some type of conception of what authenticity looks like. I don't think that authenticity can be held down to a static thing and thus to search for it is a ploy for failure because it is something that you can never find.

Feminism as a broad concept has historically been too essentialist in its incorporation of racial categories allowing for tropes like the Welfare Queen to continue, diminishing black women from the narrative of equal access and empowerment.

I think that this is interesting to note because often there is a separation between media and its influence in the political scene but with this introduction to "Gangsta Rap" there is a break in this divide because of the message being transmitted to the public of a reality for black people living in this area being the result of imbalanced political decisions.

The they say is the "common life" of others to relate to them and to show commonalities but then "to throw colouring of imagination" to show the authorship of the common or the ordinary to create a different interpretation showing a strong sense of I, to take away the context of the they in order to know how to appeal with the extrapolation of personal experience with "ordinary things"

If they say it, then it "naturally" becomes the conclusion that a consumer of the poem would come to. Therefore creating a direct relationship from I to they because I am producing how the "they" will or should receive the poetry.

When the speaker says "they who should be pleased" he is already particularizing a collective group as to create some type of individualism to show that the poem impacts some but not all but then in the same sentence says that "common pleasure" and "common dislike" to collectivize everyone into a group. This allows somehow for the reader to know where his poems are and how he has mastered or figured out what appeals and what repels the audience.

Sets up the question of whether this hunger dwindles or fades as we get older? Does our ability to access the imaginative or in the context of the reading, learn how others see the real diminish? If so, is poetry then an attempt to reclaim our more interpretive self?