The right one (A1) moved forward then the left one (A2) moved forward and the right one (A1b) landed on a pebble that could not be felt (C, D) through the rubber shoe sole (E1) but the left one (E2) had struck nothing at all on this pass that it could feel…

On the very next pass however the left foot was observed to have stepped on the stem (I believe the technical term for this “stem” is the “rachis”) of a feather, which was not felt and could not have been felt, not through the thick rubber sole of the shoe (C,D2)

And on the very next pass after that also it was seen to fall on the stem of a dried leaf, which also could not have been felt through the shoe sole, or be discerned from the feeling of the concrete, of the resistance of the concrete to one’s step, through the shoe sole.

Then the heel hit again . The thick padded part was up. “Feet are accented on the penult and at the antepenult are ankles.” (thought) “Then the ten toes, which is a long arc.” (Imagining the feet as poetic or volt meter readers — No. Erased).

Q: you look on your writing through the lens of failure, now how would you see it through the lens of success (if everyone liked it?) Yes. (Writing at that point would probably need to be abandoned if it hadn’t already “floated off.” A person would need to do other things at that point most likely — a person, after all, already needs to be doing other things.) But would your writing look different if [CROSSTALK] Such as all those things one puts off by writing undoubtedly, as if [CROSSTALK] 

Interesting. Now a not quite related question comes to mind: what if the new testament had become the literary sensation of Rome? (Are you saying we are writing the New Testament?) No of course not  [CROSS TALK] (You think we’re writing the New Testament!) no! [CROSSTALK]

What I’m saying is, suppose the New Testament was a best seller in Rome when it came out, like Dyanetics or something, like a Tom Cruise figure was a prominent roman early adopter of Christianity, would that have blunted or neutralized its spiritual content? Would it have taken it away from the early Christians and given it to the educated Romans? And if so, would that tell us something about whether and how we consider “the bible as literature”? (What I think you’re driving at is that it would tell us that it is definitely not literature, except to the extent that literary devices are somewhat unavoidable in writing. Literature is Rome. Literature is The United States. Literature is William Faulkner being sent by the State Department to South America. Proper religion is apolitical, non-commercial.) You still there? How would the Apostle Paul have responded, to have received all that acclaim and status? How would Rome have reacted? Christianity would have been relegated to the literary fad of the season, wouldn’t it? Paul would be Tom Cruise, right? You still there? (I suppose the New Testament did become the literary sensation of Rome, in a sense, only it took a while. I am still here, but I’m fading.)

%d bloggers like this: