the ms of mt kin, notes toward a review
of course I can't write this review, really, but here s the start
one thng I have never done is really and thoroughly read RadiOS; have read A Humament more thoroughly
I have also written my own bit on erasure, especially in IN MEDAS RES in DaDaDa, but also around that work in this blog etc.
So, I must ask -- is my quick resort to the SOURCE in Homles / Dickinson, or even Anne Carson / et.al, or Ronald Johnson/Pound -- its consequent focus on process rather than result, which comes to my mind first because because, a problem? or is result more important? because to have a bunch of writing no matter the result with a process which is not only more critically discussed but also perhaps the main thing is a problem, as much so as a bunch of writing which is only interesting as to result, with no process, craft, or critical engagement rising to attention also -- yet, and especially younger reviewers -- do focus on effect and while lots of older reviewers focus on context/influence. Or affect.