a kind of surprise importance in my reading is Clark Coolidge. I get a kick from his work, a moivation. I like extent, that sense of quantity. Jonathan Mayhew's question about the poem versus the project meant, to me, a matter of process. of course I like poems qua poems, just as I like to use the word qua when I'm at home. but I like hearing the engine running (stupid metaphor, okay), which, in this particular, means Coolidge at the job. Under The Nameways interests me because Coolidge admits to a feeling of attenuation, of having 'run out'. Coolidge? well yeah, even him. it isn't just gushing. it is perspective. it is a view of the work in process. look at all the Ganick books in Ex Poetical, and I know that aint all he's done. it's not just that he writes so much, but that he finds them into print some way (a number of these works were privately printed). this sort of outpouring is not for everyone, is not possible for everyone nor is it aesthetically so. but I am fascinated by it. both Ron Silliman and Henry Gould (bedfellows of strangeness) proceed with a sense of formality and plan to their work. fixed idea. Coolidge and Ganick, I wot, don't plan in terms of structure so much as commitment to a strategy. well, there's strategy to Gould and Silliman, so what do I mean? commitment to the pile, to put it bluntly. Olson's sense of quantity, perhaps. I am not asserting dualities here, nor preference, for I can easily can comprise all 4 writers. my method aligns more with Coolidge and Ganick, but this does not encumber my aesthetic sense. within my language limitation I think my taste is fairly catholic.