Allegra Harvard
Writing as a Message
When and as I write I am liking to make it clear to you and use a direct language system of conveyance and slight repetition. It is most useful in its grammar. Most definitely, I am deeply affected by Gertrude Stein and Apollinaire and I am not afraid of that or ashamed to say it. It is much better to say it and express your interest rather than a veiled hedonism followed by death and anguish, most believably and remorsefully within the self. And that makes you a lousy debate and difficult person to be around. The best you can do is to be direct and say what you are thinking most clearly. Audre Lorde said it best in its most definite recitations — we must be clear because no one will understand unless you are exactly clear and decisive and that makes you with your good head on your shoulders and exciting. And frank. And repeat yourself. And I believe she may be one of the smarter writers in history. I cite for you the direct impulse in my shrine to language here and right now towards those private lessons and such that most people feel and will not say but we should say it more often and become the more and mostly excited. So when I tell you I am to be clear I will make it extremely clear to you and direct you through exactly all that is happening and will continue to happen in this writing. The creation of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley becomes more important now. This is monstrous and will eventually catch on. And moving forward I wish to recite a line that has struck out at me and continuing seemingly in its affect to make me feel the greatness of life and feelings I am living inside of now much like how Frankenstein felt when he first saw Mary: "The innocent suffers; but she whom I thought amiable and good has not betrayed the trust I reposed in her, and I am consoled” followed by "Amiable cousin! Such were your thoughts, mild and gentle as your own dear eyes and voice. But I — I was a wretch, and none ever conceived of the misery that I then endured” which was relieved on page 69 directly before volume 1 concludes.
POST SCRIPT: The artist in most should take a radical vow of silence and direct their thoughts into the other places. As a writer, you must direct your thoughts most directly but within the explanations of the artist (considering the artist as a young dog now) should be left solely to the critic and that exactly is how it should continue and seemingly how it must be. The fantastic repose. The anti-institutional which is apparently the stance we as artists are publicly saying to one another and silently arpeggiate the cold facades on contemporaria. Intellectual as the psychiatrist of history, the critic mirroring horrific propositions to the artist in which case the artist knows nothing whatsoever and at all. It’s top down, from the sky down no matter. And that’s how I am feeling. Artist vs. writer with the indulgence in criticism becoming the critic and hints of paradox or better said hypocrisy and then the better silence which is at most best in the conclusion of everything. Welcome: the significant firehose.