the illusion of dimensionality in writing

pretending to be writing in time, when actually we’re inventing time. one dimension writing forces the reader to necessarily accept the writer’s limitations, to go along with what the writer presents as reality. a grocery list or a novel works just this way.

got to be ok to have a place of your own, where your ideals ring whenever anyone hits you. ok to know that what you need to express can only be because there’s nothing else left.

what’s what with this blog…

i’d like this to be a place where poets can talk honestly, poet to poet, about how a poem works and doesn’t work, why it ended up looking the way it does. i’d like it to be pretty hard-core: able to say when i thought something i wrote in a poem wasn’t totally conscious, wasn’t real — just put in for effect.

i’d like to discuss ‘effect’, and the difference between styling and shaping: following the course of your emotional expression, as against, making a poem seem cool.

sometimes cool is all i want, but i call that writing ‘verse,’ not ‘poetry — ‘verse’ because it’s just chatting for effect in rhythmic or melodic way… ‘saying something.’_L2Q8184

what is poetry writing?

_L2Q8184what is poetry writing? isn’t it what is left after you’ve written the poem? how do you know you’ve actually written one? is it because it works on someone else, or because it works according to what you think a poem should be?

doesn’t critique of your writing explain to you how you wrote? but, doesn’t this depend on a good critic — someone who’s as much a poet as you are…