more blind etc
jane thanks for initialing 'anarchy.'
i know of no discussion to change 'open i'd blind renga' into anything else.
we were to write 18 long/short/long links each about ourselves and merge them. an autobio of sorts. [my play on the words i'd/id.] when we shared our links you said you realized you had gotten confused/forgotten the emphasis on 'i' and had lots of 'eye' links. i said that's ok. that's where we left it. but one way or another we had linked blindly.
if you would like to put your original links back with that explanation then it will be at least what we had. if you'd rather not then i'd like to withdraw mine as they just don't work in this situation. the 'blind' idea has been lost. and my i'd/id is too much id in relationship to your second group of varying lines. i'm uncomfortable with the big contrast which i feel you can understand. we could work out a title, maybe 'open i'd/eyed blind renga.' (which would make sense with the explanation.)
ideas/concepts/terms/words seem to mean a lot to me. i don't know why other than they point to the opening of haiku content/approach/shape/attitude/etc. if anyone wishes to think thru them. eg, the difference in 'women's haiku' and 'haiku by women,' 'unaloud haiku' and 'visually aloud haiku' and other such distinctions. i don't see them as compartmentalizations which i feel the japanese have overdone re nature, ie, a closing down of nature. but rather a clarifications of my ideas--mainly for myself, because in some 30 years of writing i need some help.
eg, 'unaloud haiku' is an era clarification. when i was writing them they were unallowed. by the time bill pauly's term 'eyeku' became accepted visual haiku were tolerated. yet the term 'ku' which implies 'phrase' added to eye has not been thought thru. it's really a cousin to 'visually aloud haiku' as the latter do express a phrase visually. eg, 'brown goose' in 'totr.' 'unaloud haiku' as violet, toad, easterndiamondbackedrattlesnake are purely visual made up of only the names/words themselves. i found this to be a needed distinction--for me.
beyond this personal reference and the haiku history clarification, it just seems that while we're still alive and still have part of our minds functioning we should document things as accurately as possible.
including the intent of 'blind renga.' it simply means blind linking. the content pre-determined or not
i also feel that the john/marlene history should be as accurate as possible. i would truly appreciate if you could make your text in 'twwh' reflect the corrections i suggested. i feel they belong in the text rather than in a 'so she says' link elsewhere. you do not trust me? if you could do this then we could have a link to the other info i included. and somewhere i'd like to deal with the romantic view of our 'living off the land' via cor/john. we didn't 'raise' bonsai any more than we raised peanut butter.
as you know i've basically 'protected' john. i have no reason to do otherwise. but dates of books, interest in haiku, earliest haiku, influences, etc. need correct documentation. in tom lynch's thesis he said something like i maintained a gallery (as partial income, i think). [it's a run-down shed where i sometimes put up paintings and had friends over.] i don't know where tom got his info--but i suspect from john who wasn't paying child support and it made him feel less guilty.
well, some thoughts. if you have time i'd appreciate your consideration.
back to 'as is 90s contents'