Mad Poetry and the normative affect bootstrap of grace

A criticism was made of mad poets in that there's much description but no engagement of the issue. This is a little disingenuous in my opinion. Is this a true duality? One could say that mad poetry might be just cathartic. In a linguistic paradigm it makes perfect sense regards talking cure. My preference here is non-psychological and for the sensory diversity. As well, a kind of magical voluntarism is at work in the critique. What does it mean to engage outside of cathartic expression? Does the critique want the neoliberal triumph or at least an acknowledgement of happiness? I hope my fellow mad poets actually explore that but whether that reaches the publisher surface is another thing all together. And why would I want to present my engagements as such as all they involve is forced non successful medication? The narrative will not be tamed. Any discursive pre established landscape from academia is no relief in sight for anyone. I have written some literary works on poetic phenomenology that might fulfill normative aesthetics but publishers are not ready for that conversation just yet. Could be an industry gaslighting but how far do we go for belief? For me it's physics and it's not the easiest field to generate poesis. But I guess at some time I'll be believed. Til then it's "not for us"