Although mental imagery is a unique experience, there are patterns that can tell us about how the mind works--for instance, some people think in objects, while others think more in terms of spatial relationships. Mysteriously, this little article thingy does not have a byline. The initials P.P.P. appear at the end, but...I don't really know who that is. Since I'm home, I have the pleasure of knocking over giant stacks of Emory Magazine that my parents collect in my room all year round, so this time I actually opened one of them. I read this piece because one of my former professors is in it, and she's RAD. Then I felt vindicated about being stubborn about my point of view on my writing, my perception of the way I want my words to work. My poems are full of prepositions because I think in terms of spatial relationships. I'm not saying that we should all write this way, or that one method of writing is inherently better or worse than another, but isn't there room for something a little different than what you're used to? Can we address a poem on its own terms? Can we allow a poem, instead of setting a scene or idea in front of us, to situate us in a space and ask us to experience it? I just don't understand why not. As this pony likes to say:
