cannon, The

American Poetry Review, The, May/Jun 1998 by Scalapino, Leslie

[The delineated cultural dichotomy itself 'makes' the reverberation in this last above sentence only extreme and ridiculous.

I can reverberate that ridicule on oneself effectively as the writing-syntax -to 'bounce' it to be a separated occurrence also.

This can reveal something about 'one' in relation to social occurrence. And also the intention is to see what occurrence is.]

Polemical device as writing process isn't to investigate shape and motion to find out what the event is-it is to instruct what one is to think about event

But event-[any] isn't even there [as that formation].

One/events can only exist outside of formation there.

People in this culture are 'given' the view [as if view and description were an action, and as if it were causal] that they like that which is liked -if something appears not liked (by others) it can't have value. 'Separation' is 'ridicule' itself.

As successful current poetic-critical 'theory'-a description of itself as `radical,' which is at once sign and definition of status, is dependent on reproducing the conventional distinctions, [as category of thought].

The closing of the bookstores and the utter commercialization of publishing and distribution indicate there will be few reading anywhere.

My sense is 'subjectivity'-rendered at all-is separation per se simply as observation of phenomena.

Poetically, this separation itself (delineated as writing, as its shape / syntax) is also a shadow-[evocation] of that which is `exterior,' the public.

Much of contemporary writing practice (of experimentalist mode) now is delineation (in its syntax-i.e. it is gestural, an action) of this separation of one. Writing now is being the 'interior' and the `exterior.' To make these occur, and to see them 'real'-ly.

"We're not going to go on playing games, even if the rules are downright fascinating. We require a situation more like it really is-no rules at all. Only when we make them do it in our labs do crystals win our games. Do they then? I wonder."7

- in one's conflict-in surveillance-(as if an aside to them: BRING IN THE CANNON). The 'directions' (as in a text of a play, in italics), which is the same as the rendering as context, are the `interior.' Writing to engage the interior of the writing itself, as exterior events, for anything to occur-its motions change events.

A man writes: "I find the basic premise condescending, elitist, totalitarian in concept.... Condescending because it implies Bob, being smart, can get something (and whoever said it had to be a 'message'?) from (and I loathe the word) 'experimental' writing... but the 'masses' (because that's how they're perceived in this sort of thought) are incapable of this perception. Elitist because it implies some sort of superior information that 'we' have, and can interpret for `them.' . . . It's a variant of the `deliberately obscure' slur, which I've always thought only revealed how its utterers write, or perceive writing. I don't write to hide anything-I write as clearly as what I need to express can be expressed.... The reason the majority of people don't read poetry (and, statistically, don't read) is that it doesn't interest them-I don't think it's because you, or anyone else we like to read, or I write for an 'elite'-we write for anyone who cares to open the book and is interested enough to read on. And what is going to be the content of this `accessible to the masses' poetry? That their lives are shit? Or is it simply going to be Rod McKuen or Philip Larkin with `superior content'?"