The movement (architectonics) of the book is dead-on.
First, clouds and the weather, a little groundwork
Second, Canto Diurno # 1 (my fav is Noon re:Sobin's work)
Third, Lemur Mornings
This book answers the nagging question of difficulty and audience (sort of).
For me, this is perfect balance of critical/theoretical and lyrical.
In other words, this is what I've been looking for.
In talking to Tost a while back, he mentioned he found it difficult to blog about current books because the energy used in writing poems might be sucked out by writing critically about it on his blog.
I sort of feel the same way.
Anytime I get pumped about a book, I only blog about it in general terms. It's not that I can't explicate/break-down/look closely/be more specific.
I suppose I want to let the influences leak-in in an intuitive fashion (I'll sort out the specifics later).
So when I get excited about John Taggart, Pierre Joris, or Joseph Donahue. I can only say I am excited. I don't want to break it all down and examine it too closely (at least at the moment).
Anyone else feel the same way?
In other words, I need turbulence before critical transformations.
I've never read anything else by Joris. I am wondering if there are any more Canto Diurno's?
Anyone out there read anything by Pierre Joris they can recommend?
In the meantime, I've William Bronk's Selected Poems on my desk. Don't know what to expect from William Bronk (except I keep hearing his work has connections to gnostic philosophy).
The right work at the right time!
The well-made book interests me so much more than the well-made poem!
I suppose that might explain my general dislike for using anthologies to teach literature.
I am much more interested in a few whole collections than lots of little poems thrown together.