Finished reading Robert Kelly's Runes and now reading Clark Coolidge's Odes of Roba and a selection of poems from Maureen Owen's The No-Travel's Journal.
So ancient places have invaded my mind. Runes/ruins (as Kelly says in the intro to his book), ancient Rome and objects recontextualized and worn on the body (Owen manages to re-invigorate the list poem).
I read and write for the next buzz, the next fix. I am writing/reading for the perfect fix which will never arrive. I am reading/writing to set the world in motion, to rewrite the world and my experiences. The world must be recased. I read/write in order to learn and relearn how to pay attention (a never ending process).
I've come to realize how some writers use parataxis better than others. What I mean by better is with an aim toward the social nexus of language. Rather than just seeing all the postmodern (and New Sentence) parataxis as cool and hip, the really great ones use it for reasons, dare I say purposes. Not the same kind of attempt for authorial control as most school of Quietude poetry, but certainly not a complete absence of the author either. I suppose a completely random computer generated text (say a google tool without any imput from the writer) might take the author out of the equation if they don't tinker or re-arrange anything. But I am happen to find value in some authorial control. Not just mimicing the aesthetics of any given avant garde practice without a solid immersion in the historical/cultural implications or goals of such practices. I'm not saying everyone needs to know a whole lot of theory in order to write interesting poetry, but it is quite easy to spot a poem that is unaware of it's process/techniques.
Anyway. I must erase everything (but not before inscribing). As Kelly writes in Runes: "A Word is anything that can be erased."