just in case...

those involved with my email question of the year would like to hear more from Dvorak... and missed this comment {which i must confess i just read today bc of an email/blogger mixup...}


kdvorak said...
i'm right here, pringle.

thanks for post'g the Q; i've got it on my blog now, too. of course, no one's really gone there yet, but...

i've asked a bunch o' people this Q & it appears we're @ a consensus--except for 1, & that wd be my advisor. apparently, A. doesn't believe in accidents.

obviously, i believe that it is possible to "unintentionally obfuscate" something. and, dang it, i think it's possible for the very reasons everyone's said here so far.

apparently, though, there are people who believe that the world is
flat, that
happenstance is non-existent,
and that words
are limited to forming a finite number of phrase-fancies.


*****

in other news... maggie left for NJ, NY and MA today [and Prageeta's wedding]... so it is doubtful she will post on Flarf until she gets back.

i just got my trusty journal of the academy of american poets in the mail today and read Matthea Harvey's essay and "Future of Terror" "Terror of the Future" poems today. i must confess that i usually don't take the time to read this journal. this is only because i've been in school forever and have developed some bad habits. like not reading journals bc i'm so busy reading books and blogs. but this essay reminded me of playfulness and the dictionary... and also politicalness and the dictionary. which is a good thing to be reminded of these days. all days.

*****

i like that dvorak says: PHRASE-FANCIES.


*****

you know... i have an aversion to 1. random fonts and 2. extreme cleverness in poetry. i end up frustrating myself quite a bit with this.

*****

i turn in my thesis tomorrow and then i begin reading again: the bible, the collected works of ted berrigan, and hopefully deviant propulsion, and erica kaufman's chapbook...