coincidence? of course not. having spent a few days sporadically writing a review/engagement of/with christopher rizzo's playing the amplitudes i find (in an email update from goodreads) that brooklyn is at odds with the term experimental in poetry. my view on the subject is that i don't want to even imagine a poem that isn't, in at least a very basic sense, an experiment. as in ”will this work?” ”what happens if?” ”is this even remotely possible?” & so on & so forth. this, to me, is at the heart of writing poems instead of, say, political pamphlets, essays, diary entries, bumper stickers or whatever other form of more practically inclined writing you can imagine. rizzo works in what is known as an experimental tradition (a paradox perchance?) using it to write poetry that is stimulating, playful, fun, political & at times disturbing, as a good trickster would. adam fieled wants to wedge his writing in between the ”experimental” & the ”traditionalist” (his terms are ”post-avant” & ”mainstream”). i don't care much where on that spectrum my poems are, besides they're probably all over the place either way. in the rizzo book there is a sequence of sonnets. adam's when you bit... is a book of sonnets. engagements with both should appear in the next issue of eileen tabios' galatea resurrects. coincidence? probably not