I do enjoy Sarah Manguso's poetry very much. My remark of the other day was not meant as disparaging in any way.

My point was that much of what I enjoy does not fit within the category i was referring to.

That even a seemingly obvious statement can provoke disagreement.

I'm interested in the implicatures of statements. For example. "The window is open" can mean "Please close the window, I'm cold." When a playwright puts that sentence into a character's mouth, the playwright is also saying something about the character. She is someone who communicates like that. So a statement of "fact" becomes more and more complex the more it is embedded in the pragmatics of language. The fact that I made the character a female in that sentence implies something too. Change it to "You still haven't closed the window."

Rewrite this scene in the styles of Pinter, Mamet, Beckett, Albee, Creeley, Artaud, Roussel, Ashbery, Koch.

Suppose I talk of my biological father. I do have a biological father. But my biological father is simply my father. In other words, I am not adopted. So there is no particular reason to call my father a "biological" father. There is a redundancy here that implies something not the case, despite the accuracy of the description. I wrote this in a poem, in fact. "He spoke of his biological father. I asked if he was adopted and he said no, he just liked the sound of it, it was an accurate statement of the facts." Here the speaker seems to disavow the implicatures of his language.