In my prior blogpost it may look like I'm stating many blogs fit cozily with M Nussbaum's line, but I really mean those and this blog don't often do clarity in the august manner of her sentence. Blogs are awesome odd spaces.
So I went to Kate Z's blog FFIMS and she's going on vacation from her blog, which is perfectly valid, and probably healthy, but I'm not thrilled. I'm not in the habit of emailing her--and I love how she states in her bon-voyage from blogging blogpost (bon voyage is kinda a funny term to use as her departure note longs for burrowing, not the open seas or vast continents or somesuch) that she'll, possibly, be up for email exchanges--so no-more literary community I've gotten really used to, and am glad for; and FFIMS was, hopefully shall be again, its site! Or location! Or venue or square where, electronically, people meet! And ugh I'm hopeless at the straightshot trajectory: this point (point is the wrong word but oh well) should have come earlier--true-true, I guess a single person can't be a community (ok, this is no longer feeling prior); and by comunity at FFIMS I mean the blogcomment streams; but Kate Z talks to and within those streams so she, surely this makes some plausible sense, becomes both singular and plural or, in other words, a community. I have had brief email xchanges with Kate Z, but they havn't seemed to catch and hence, logos-wise oddly, stream; but woww have we had some lively exchanges at FFIMS.
I love--and of course by love I mean do not love--how, with the prior paragraph, I had no intention of writing a labrynthine (and that adjective is generous) sentence but was initially aiming for conventionally chatty or rather, foremost, for conventional transparent prose. I want to write prose like a novel by James Patterson: it's practically an algorhythm if that's the word for when a set of movements, a movement complex, goes reeling, gets replicated; it reads like no individual author at-all.