Most of the time I just don’t understand many of these replies. They say... while meaning... Good for the ego, I suppose. Like the old beatniks, snapping their fingers at each other.

I see much self-criticism here and I wonder if it is justified. First, the work is outrageously successful in meeting the goal of disrupting your “normal” pacing and doing so in a wide variety of manners. Of course, you may be mocking yourself as another means of disrupting “pace.” If so, very nice.

“The modern Prometheus” is Lucifer, but how do we see Satan/the devil when we transition the focus, as you do, immediately, to a graveyard, and, more broadly, to the world of art? Bringing the pieces together? Again, a disruption from your norm, as such disruption (as far as I can tell) is not usually there. The “bullets” as Hall notes, almost never used by anyone. Nicanor Parra, in his 1960s “antipoems” used them quite a bit. So did Christopher Logue in his “translations” of Homer. But, yes, hardly ever done.

Those last few lines struck me the most. But they caught me because of the uncertain feeling they delivered, almost a bloody disagreement between them. Was that an intentional disruption as well? Ambiguity allows for a type of “flow,” doesn’t it? Disagreement certainly does not.

“...the dew/of my own want” seems almost too obvious. But when matched up against “This poem is from my mind/in the way we choose our satellites./This poem is from my heart/in the way one rolls in the grave.” a disagreement expands the way a cloud forms on a humid day.

Taken by themselves, however, those last two stanzas create long, lazy pauses for thought despite the relatively short words. An accomplishment. Again.

So. Snap, snap, snap, snap, young lady.

Possessor of Paul Newman eyes. Author of the straightforward & strange. “Women zai shuo ba.” Be useful; share what you can; help others always. Doctor of texts.