Seth Abramson's just posted "Audience" up on his blog.
He begins the post with a NB:
"Eschewing literary theory and taxonomies, for now, in favor of ruminations on the act of writing"
And then after fleshing out his ideas (read the blog post if you're interested), Seth starts imagining (fantasizing, really) how Ron Silliman will characterize the post. How Ron Silliman will label it when Ron (all of this in Seth's fantasy) links to it on his blog. And then, caught up in fantasy, Seth challenges the Imaginary Ron: "But why not just the truth."
Fascinating. I wonder if Seth dreams about Ron too.
Here's the NB that ends Seth's post.
[NB: I am always amused to think about which pithy, inaccurate, reductionist, and essentially nutrient-free headline Ron will give a posts of mine should he ever link to it. For this one I'm thinking, "How Quietists See Audience," or "The Quietist Obsession With Audience," or "Quietists on Who Should Write Poetry," or "Quietist Theory Disguised As Personal Process." Selectively treating a single phrase/statement (out of context) as representative is also popular. But why not just the truth? Like "Seth Abramson on Audience"?].
Such a beautiful and scintillating chess game!