obvious

i write because i want to recognize the obviousness of the obvious. i write because i want to unknow the obviousness of the obvious.

gap

to disorganize the agreeable scripts of the same and speculate the stars of the abracadabric nothing of the gap.  

nothing

nothing

sometimes i think, i feel, i'm almost scratching the non name, the non center, the center of almost nothing, the nothing of almost, even there. but, soon, then, i resist. i return to the wrong name of things that are almost things, almost words, almost real. i remain here, where you can, by little, still do some thing, almost no thing, for what was not, is not, may be. who knows if there, where i almost went, which i foresaw, maybe i also could, maybe it would work, but there is so far, so near, i'm not going, no. 

socks

in portuguese we say " menos vaidade, menos meias". in english, less vanity, fewer socks. i so much prefer the portuguese, in which vanity and socks are not divided into countable and uncountable nouns, as in english. who said socks are more accountable than vanity? i'd say it's the very opposite. socks belong to the order of the abstract, the conceptual and vanity is rather pedestrian. but what i really like is this indistinction between sugar, love, granulated sugar and anguish. everything less. 

someone

everything is always in a state of coincidence, inciding always at the same time. for it to become a sort of miracle, it's enough for someone to gather it into a story. coincidences are the love of someone for a narration.

it

the hypothesis may sound preposterous, but it's poetic: the impossibility, in english, of creating sentences without a subject or an object, is what makes the english and the americans people who are so much more pragmatic than the speakers of the portuguese language, for instance. after all, with this requirement, it becomes always necessary to know who acted, who suffered the action, whence one is coming, where one is going. how hard it must be not to be able to simply say: "rains". why and to what purpose: "it rains"? and also the terrible pain of not being able to say: "i feel", "i need" and "i want", but always "i feel it", "i need it", "i want it". for an unsebjective and unobjective grammar. down with the its!

world

it's ridiculous to say that ulysses is better than the divine comedy, than shakespeare, than homer, because ulysses is so good, that it would be an insult, both to ulysses and to the other works, to read it viewing at comparisons or competitions. but it so happens that it's hard, in order to describe the sensation, not to resort to this foolish device. ulysses is the best thing in the world and that's it.