with both of these, i ask myself: “what am i being asked to think?”
and, with the apricot poem, i feel i am being asked to think about Barthes and his distinction between the apricot and the onion, as a description of the kinds of texts we might have before us, and how we can go about reading them.
then, with the eat asemic / orange videopoem, there is the question of surface, which is where we write, and depth (or volume), which is where we find the nutrients of a reading (where reading = eating).
for the first poem, the apricot poem, we are treating the pit (pith) as a surface, and writing on it, so even the traditional “readerly” text can be and will be (must be) read as if it were a writerly text. that is in fact how things are done these days. as for the asemic element, we find it (once again) mysteriously synonymous with polysemic. it asks us to think about the possibility that there is another kind of text, and another kind of reading, beyond or more likely beside the readerly and the writerly.
the eat asemic poem is yet another question about the beside-space of the readerly and/or writerly text. if we remove the surface of the text from the substance of the text, we find ourselves within a shamanic ritual of reading, eating the body of the god. as for the surface, where asemic research resides, it is process, and is processed. once asemicized, it will be discarded as waste — which permits us, finally, to rescue the prefix “a-” from its forced residence as a subcategory of the prefix “poly-“. from there, we acknowledge the rhyme of “orange” with “range” and carry on with the poem, following it around through and as a life.
— Jim Leftwich