And while I am walking my dog a comment on it, since the author asks what we think.
I love it.
But so far as the quote about 20th century style — I agree with it up to the point where it says that I’m addressing my readers as equals. Perhaps this is where what I mean by “divergence” in philosophy seems mandated. And actually my poem in the previous post kind of indicates this.
I’m not addressing my readers In a general sense as equals. Of course I am writing to a specific audience, but this audience is not equivalent to saying ‘my readers’. I think that could be a qualification or characteristic of 20th century writing that they want to assume a certain equality across the category of intelligence, ability to read and then the person that is reading.
I would say that what I write is available to everyone and everyone can have their own interpretation and we can have a big discussion about all the possibilities involved in what I wrote; I think that’s a very modern 20th century manner and goes even to a certain sense of style.
But I would say that somehow I diverge from this style in as much as I’m not excluding people by saying that I am not including all my readers in the equal reading. But in fact those that would feel that I’m excluding them by saying that I’m not assuming and equality of readers, are people that are inherently not involved in my particular “style” of writing, and yet even as they might feel that they have a certain invitation into what I’m writing.
OK I’m home from my walk.