poetic labor, poetic bodies, poetic value

Vickers points out that "mimetic representation" (18) is not what the blasonneurs are going for; they're trying to show off their own virtuosity (and emphasize the production of their own textual body), not represent another body (or part). But what happens when (as others have alluded to) the line between the poet-speaker's body and the woman's body gets blurred -- the "bouche" that the praised body parts make speak is, at least in some sense, the poet's own, and the "soupir" and "larme" are sooner or later revealed to be the poet's, not the woman's. When the poems are construed as referring to the poet (and, perhaps, his own poetic labor), they come to seem like performative utterances: the poem becomes reduced to an emission from the poet's body, a sigh that escapes his mouth rather than a carefully crafted, entirely exterior object.

So part of the fun is that this is not just a game on the externalized, "arbitrary" grounds of the female body: the poet is more intimately involved. And I like Vickers' vaguely economic language of the poets' personal "investment" and "risk." But what, exactly, is at stake? How does the "risk" of talking about the female body in these terms get converted into value? Is there some kind of objective value being created outside the indifferent, purely rhetorical "mal ou bien" that body parts produce? On a more concretely economic level, how is the money-like-ness of body parts in the Blasons (e.g. "la voix argentine") different from the debasement of actual money exchange in the Contreblason to "la main" (the hand defiled by "argent bailler")?