“Taking Three as the subject to reason about —
A convenient number to state—
We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out
By One Thousand diminished by Eight.
This is not a medically approved mathematical operation …
This is not an insight into the Essence of the Number Three …
This is not the Royal Road to 19840 …
This is not a comment upon the intractable unreality of all Numbers …
This is not a jaded Christ Church don’s comment upon the futility of impressing the intractable unreality of all Numbers upon his all-too-real thickheaded students …
This is not a jaded Montreal illustrator’s comment upon the futility of impressing his long-suffering wife with yet another impecunious display of his useless facility* in mimicking the Victorian wood engraving style …
This is not an image of an image which is not what it seems to be …
This is not the sort of thing which the general public has come to expect, thank god …
This is not the unexpected work of a far better artist …
This is not a clue to the fabled and elusive meaning of The Hunting of the Snark, for this is not clairvoyance.
_____________
* Nor is this a pathetic attempt to gain the attentions of a publisher willing to finance my surrealist-cum-baroque, illustrated translation of Jean de la Fontaine's Fables choisies … nor my Oulipian rendition of Verne's L'Île mystérieuse into Dantean terza rima.
It certainly isn't! No strike that, this should read that this is not not a love song.
ReplyDeleteThis is not what you think it is, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteNo — I mean, yes — I think … or, maybe …
ReplyDelete