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.
turn the tables abd think that everything Stevens does is EXACTLY as someone like Stevens would have done


A philosopher of a lawyer? I guess he didn't invent that, but it is so common, as is a poet of a lawyer

A louche and frustrated insurance man? Who married a beautiful wife and lived in a beautiful house and worked a pretty easy job in order to support it? Who are we to question, or to regret more than the poet does?

Finally, what's so bad about the victorian AND mannerist to both the Augustans AND moderns? Too messy, too fun, too... too.

"So it’s all nonsense and elegance, then! Elegance is the vacant form of eloquence."

I think this is an important observation of Logan's. I think he's dead wrong about elegance. think he's dead wrong about nonsense. Thus, I think he has no idea what elegance means, or the blend of decor / decorum that Stevens uses to get that sort of "golden glitter" lord help us Tom Wolfe wrote about in bonfire, as someone influenced by the american flaneur.

Elegance, with its dizzying blend of simplicity, necessity, and aesthetic value, is near opposite eloquence, with its tripping sounds, ringing occasional meanings, and sonorous blank spots (couldn't make that parallel yet -- obviously, aesthetic expression of elaborated meanings someone more rooted in the ego).