Tentatively, Convenience's Reviews > ING

As usual, it's weird writing these reviews. It cd, hypothetically, all depend on my mood. Eg: I cd write: "Who gives a shit? It's poetry, I hate poetry." & it wd be as true as something very different that I might write.

I've been an experimental writer, I probably still am. It's not one of my highest priorities but it still tickles my brain now & then - then my brain sneezes instead of farting. In my days of greater investigation of things that can be done w/ language, I was looking for writers whose writing struck me as original, or just struck me - preferably w/o injury.

Coolidge has always been a beacon of originality. It doesn't matter one whit to me if I 'understand' what he's trying to do, what matters to me is that when I read the words they seem fresh - preferably fresh in a way that seems truly distinct to the writer - & that's Coolidge fer ya.

In his poem "CABINET VOLTAIRE", section 3 is roughly as follows:

3.


tradict


theless


it gether
tastic
for


gin tion



and sarily
and
sests


He uses fragments of words. "tradict" cd have a phantom limb 'completing' it as "contradict", "theless" cd be "nonetheless", "gether" -> "together", "tastic" -> "fantastic", "tion" -> "recognition", "sarily" -> "necessarily"; but what about "sests"? The last syllable of this section?

The very title of the bk is a 'mere' suffix. The Guston painting on the front has brush strokes enclosed by the cover, the one on the back has brush strucks enclosed by more brush strokes. By the time one has made it from the front to the back have the fragments become more complete by the process of reading them?