1. I have been trying for more than a year and a half (which to my credit is three quarters of the time I’ve been at it writing poetry again after my ridiculously long hiatus) to cultivate a sort of politics of abundance within my very own person, at least where writing is concerned. By that I mean approaching the world, in terms of writing, as if there is always more, more, more. Not less. Not “This is it. This is all there will ever be and so I must hoard it like a crazy.”
It’s going pretty well for me, and it’s freed me up in ways to innumerable to, well, enumerate.
Why do we always think in terms of less? In terms of mine? In terms of get your goddamn paws off it? When did author usurp what is authored in terms of what is paramount. You reference collaborations in Japan and China, but we’ve seen many collaborations since. (I hate to keep chiming this same bell, but here I go: Coleridge and Wordsworth. T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound. The Beat writers. My friend Matthew Rohrer and his friend Joshua Beckman. All the poets included in the book “Saints of Hysteria: a Half-Century of Collaborative American Poetry.” And more. More, more, more.)
If we truly believe our writing can change the world, that it is charged with the task of changing the world, isn’t *the change* what matters, rather than who trips the switch, making it possible for that change to occur?
And! I would argue that it will never be a who anyway. Not in any singular sense of the word. That would be like calling a stream a drop of water: What flows through us does so with a rush, with a clear force, that is beyond the bounds of self.
2. Steve Jobs was stupid to sell the windows technology to Bill. Dumb, dumb move. So Steve deserves what he gets. I’m not saying we could live without Gates and his empire. (Lord knows, he’s more relevant to our lives than our President.) I am just saying we can still hate him. Can’t we?
3. I got the new license. Take a look if you want and tell me if it’s the right one.
4. I don’t recall your being wrong about the clearwinged moth! Do you agree with me?
5. Above, where I said “experiments/experiential,” I meant experimental/experiential. Would you be a love and edit that comment to reflect my intention? I won’t sue you for altering my work. Promise.