Entry 453 — My Improved Piddle
I’ve just about finished my latest column for Small Press Review. A few days ago I finished a solid rough draft of what will be Chapters 13 and 14 of my book on the Shakespeare authorship question. At one point, I thought it was brilliant but as I finished it my opinion changed. I still think it pretty good, but I no longer think it something that will make everyone who reads it kneel to me in admiration. I’ve been trying for years to pin down the major cause of irrationality, and I think I’m close. I’d call it simply narrow-mindedness at a cocktail party level, but in the book I call it “Hyperconvergency.” More important, I explain how it comes about. Or try to. It’s all a matter of having too much “cerebral potency”–and lacking the accommodance to lower it and thus let extra needed information in. You’ll have to buy a copy of my book to find out more. (Or look up what I’ve said about it here.)
Amy King is saying bad things about me again. Whoops, not about me, since that would be “personal abuse,” but about my poetry. She says the reason no bigShot critics deign to denigrate my work the way they denigrate Bill Knotts’s is that my work isn’t a minuscule fraction as interesting as his. I was whining about my inability to get the level of scorn Knotts does. I said I thought “his poetry is much easier for mediocrities to deal with than mine.” Actually, I’m sure it’s because they really are too hyperconvergent to be aware of poetry like mine. Exposed to it, though, they’d be afraid to try an assault on it.
Nice to get insulted by King, but I’d prefer something lengthier from someone better-known. Something that actually said something about my poetry would be best, but it’s unrealistic to hope for that.