I'd forgotten I hadn't removed the Seinfeld reference.
Doesn't belong there.
On 7/9/2014 11:07 AM, Douglas Barbour wrote:
> Well, it grounds that slowly dissipating I, Ken.
> I wondered about the 2nd line, or would ‘so not’ be too strong an assertion?
> I’d drop a duple os ‘is’s, in the Seinfield line & at the end, replace with there?
> How well do such references carry forward in time I wonder…
> On Jul 8, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Kenneth Wolman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Don't know what it's doing.
>> I have nothing to say
>> and that's not so okay
>> because the mornings are really not fresh
>> except for the ever-needy cat
>> kneading and needing
>> nothing like renewal happens here
>> like him I scratch around furniture
>> try to figure out what
>> I'll do today will money hold up
>> probably the same as yesterday
>> nothing--my life is a Seinfeld Experience
>> and my broken mainspring
>> feels so self-renewing that
>> I must study the calendar
>> on my computer to figure out
>> what day it is or put on TV news
>> and know that if it's shown this
>> is still a weekday so
>> do I need to go to the market
>> do I need to go anywhere
>> does another day of ageing
>> make it get any easier
>> or is boredom simply inert
>> a substanceless gas
>> no easier no harder just is?
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
> Recent publications: (With Sheila E Murphy) Continuations & Continuation 2 (UofAPress).
> Recording Dates (Rubicon Press).
> Something else is out there
> And I want to hear it