review of
Ron Silliman's "The Age of Huts"
by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE
2352. "review of Ron Silliman's "The Age of Huts""
- complete review
- credited to: tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE
- uploaded to my Critics website July 25, 2025
- http://idioideo.pleintekst.nl/CriticSilliman.html
review of
Ron Silliman's "The Age of Huts"
by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - July 23-25, 2025
The complete review is here:
http://idioideo.pleintekst.nl/CriticSilliman.html
the truncated review is here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/7770253093
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1194320.The_Age_of_Huts
B/c of the word limit on Goodreads only the beginning of the review will appear there. The full review will appear here: http://idioideo.pleintekst.nl/CriticSilliman.html once I get around to making the website (probably in a few days).
I'm still on a roll of reading Ron Silliman bks. This'll be the 6th one I've reviewed in less than 6 wks. I actually look forward to reading each successive one (I'm reading them in chronological order) b/c I'm interested in what new strategies he'll develop. I imagine that there're other people out there, presumably poets, who've read & reviewed Silliman's work w/ a more insightful take than what I'm offering but those reviews don't appear to be on Goodreads so I might be the only person in this community who's tackling this work (can you hear it cry OOF?).
Of the ones I've read so far ("Crow", "MOHAWK", "SITTING UP, STANDING, TAKING STEPS", "Ketjak", & "BART") I've noted that "Ketjak" used only sentences ending in periods & that "BART" used only phrases punctuated by commas. This formal limitation has a profound effect on one's reading experience. It seemed almost 'inevitable' that the next step wd be to have sentences only ending in question marks. I was looking forward to that & here it is:
Unlike the previous 5 bks I read, wch are each organized under a single procedure, "The Age of Huts" is broken into 3 sections, each differently organized. The 1st of these is entitled "Sunset Debris". This is the one that has every sentence be a question. I found reading it absolutely amazing. I 'don't know what to make' of Silliman's titles: perhaps they have a meta-meaning that I'm not getting, perhaps Silliman likes to imply a referentiality that he then deliberately doesn't deliver on, perhaps they're a joke.
In my Silliman reviews, I've neglected to mention the publishers. This one's published by James Sherry's ROOF. "Ketjak" was published by Barrett Watten's THIS. Every press that publishes Silliman's work is excellent, they represent a 'cutting edge' of poetry. I wonder what, if anything, has superceded them? If you're interested, checking out Olchar E. Lindsann's monOcle-Lash Anti-Press ( https://youtu.be/j3rUJqr59_Y ) might be worth paying attn to. "The Age of Huts" is from 1986, 39 yrs ago, & it still seems fresh to me (that's why I slapped it). The cover was done by Lee Sherry, married to James at the time, & the production was by Susan Bee who I assume? deduce? to be Susan B. Laufer.
Some of Silliman's previous bks, "BART", e.g., were written in notebooks, apparently based on obsevation. My 1st question to myself while reading "Sunset Debris" was 'Are the questions all overheard?':
"Can you feel it? Does it hurt? Is this too soft? Do you like it? Do you like this? Is this how you like it? Is it alright? Is he there? Is he breathing? Is it him? Is it near? Is it hard? Is it cold? Does it weigh much? Is it heavy? Do you have to carry it far? Are those hills? Is this where we get off? Which one are you? Are we there yet? Do we need to bring sweaters? Where is the border between blue and green? Has the mail come? Have you come yet? Is it perfect bound? Do you prefer ballpoints?" - p 11
That's how it begins. I've read that Silliman is a prison activist so the next sentence came as no surprise.
"Do you know that the true structure of a prison is built around an illegal commodities market?" - p 13
Perhaps what was most interesting for me about this succession of questions-only was my wondering Who wd ask this question? & under what circumstances?. Such questions cd be asked in every instance but some instances might be less easily answered than others. Take this:
"Do you opt for or against irrevocable acts?" - p 14
To me that's a strange question, hardly one likely to occur in a casual conversation. I imagine it directed to a class considering philosophical matters or in a psychological analysis of someone in trouble. But I don't think either of those possibilities quite nails it. Did Silliman conceive of this question as an origin-puzzler?
& what if one responds to a question by imagining an answer to it?
""When does a question become a command?" - p 15
Never? If questions can't be commands is that a point in their favor to you?
The questions might usually seem to stand on their own but, sometimes, they seem to be part of a sequence - not necessarily a sequence of questions honing in on the possibility of a particular answer, more questions put in a sequence for alliterative or other purposes.
"Who broke the cup? Why did the guard rail break? Will there be a break in the weather? Did they make a break for it? How shall I break it to you?" - pp 19-20
The possible purpose for that sequence may just be to string together varying uses of the words "broke" & "break". There may not be any 'point' to it otherwise, there may not 'need' to be. & then there's the probability of nonsense just for the fun of it:
"Is the world of leisure suits, civil suits, air conditioning?" - p 26
& what about this?:
"What makes you not an example of right-wing anarchism?" - p 26
To me, "right-wing anarchism" is an oxymoron. That seems like the kind of idea that a Communist or Socialist might posit in order to justify yet-another pogrom against anarchists, something like the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion by Trotsky. It makes me wonder what type of political activist Silliman is.
"Where in the dream do you find recognition of the dream? What if I begin forgetting and writing the same sentences over and over? What if cognizance of the past began to diminish and I started to repeat myself? Is the same idea in different terms the same idea?" - p 26
Now that's a sort of trick question: since the last question starts w/ "Is the same idea" it already establishes the "same idea": thusly when the "same idea" aspect is questioned by the ending there's a sort of disingenuousness to it: since we're told it's the "same idea" then, yes, it's the "same idea". He might as well have asked: 'Is the same idea the same idea?' After all, the 2nd "same idea" is in a different place in the sentence & occurs at a different point in time. As such, it can be shown to be NOT the SAME "same idea" but a different one. As I recall, such questions are common in math. Wchever "same idea" has been written 1st, hundreds of yrs ago, is the ONLY "same idea", all others are imitations.
Silliman makes frequent reference to other writers. Sometimes his choices surprise me.
"Isn't it crucial that this only be viewed in the context of certain other workers, e.g., Acker, Watten, Andrews, Coolidge?" - p 27
Kathy Acker, Barrett Watten, Bruce Andrews, Clark Coolidge. The latter 3 have been associated w/ Language Poetry, but Acker?
Eventually, the reader notices that sentences seem to be recurring. For the most part, these questions stand on their own & don't have a cumulative relationship to the questions around them, there are exceptions.
"When does it get there? Does it sniffle? Does it waver? Is it apt to break? Is it apt to break up? Is it apt to break down? Will it wash? Will it wash out? Will it wash ashore? Will it, Washington? Is that a crack? Is that a ripoff? Is that a snide remark?" - p 31
Such sequences of apparently related sentences, wordplay, don't seem to have any meaning aside from the pleasure of their playfullness. That might apply to everything written here. It's the process that's important, not a more typical semantics. The questions have meanings but it's there interplay that provides the substance, not those meanings. The author isn't intending for you to wonder whether something's a snide remark.
Then a question happens that looks familiar, one that I'm sure I've read before, maybe in a variation, & the reading changes to include an expectancy, a looking-for repetitions. Something similar happened in "Ketjak". "How does lighting this cigarette cause the bus to arrive?" (p 30)
"Isn't the problem of the question that it locates us, places us in a relation, some tangible formulation, to the text or the act of the text, s if to test meaning, to see if it will exist if can thus somehow fix all of the other terms in our equation?" - p 36
& how is that a "problem"?
the next section is called "The Chinese Notebook". Given Silliman's emphasis on the use of notebooks in such bks as "Ketjak" & "BART" the making of this section explicitly referring to the notebook is 'important' in relation to such questions as: "Is the same idea in different terms the same idea?":
"18. I chose a Chinese notebook, its thin pages not to be cut, its six red-line columns which I turned 90°, the way they are closed by curves at both top and bottom, to see how it would alter the writing. Is it flatter, more airy? The words, as I write them, are larger, cover more surface on this two-dimesnional picture plane. Shall I, therefore, tend toward shorter terms-impact of page on vocabulary?" - p 44
Are these clues?:
"5. Language is, first of all, a political question.
"6. I write this sentence with a ballpoint pen. If I had used another would it have been a different sentence?
"7. This is not philosophy, it's poetry. And if I say so, then it becomes painting, music or sculpture, judged as such. If there are variables to consider, they are at least partly economic-the question of distribution, etc. Also differing critical traditions. Could this be good poetry, yet bad music? But yet I do not believe I would, except in jest, posit this as dance or urban planning." - p 43
"The Chinese Notebook" seems like the theoretical basis for the other parts of this bk. If language is "a political question" then one's use of it is presumed to be an application of one's political philosophy & intentions. If one is considering issues of distribution then the author of this bk must be considering the limited distribution that his small press publishers are able to get for their works. If the author insists that this is poetry, even though it obviously fits far easier, at least in this section, in w/ philosophy, then why hesitate to call it "urban planning"? As for "philosophy"? It's highly doubtful that this wd get grant money or be published as philosophy. It's too open-ended, too inconclusive, too vague, too unspecific to make it as phisilophy - but it's fine as poetry - & I like it better that way.
What I've never understood, or been able to relate to, is why 'poets' are so hell-bent on being 'poets'. Why not just WRITERS? Why not Language Writing instead of Language Poetry? That strikes as a career move, poets want to be seen in the context of a poetry lineage, it doesn't have to make any sense except to give them a context in wch they're likely to receive greater appreciation & support. There's money out there specifically for poetry ("This book is funded in part thanks to a grant from the New York State Council for the Arts" - p 4) Take it from me, I've insisted that I'm NOT a poet for the last 50 yrs. It's at least partially b/c of this that the poets whose works I read wd never read my own works. They'll only read it IFF I call it "poetry". Personally, I think "urban planning" might be more fun. & more creative. It also wdn't get grants.
"20. Perhaps poetry is an activity and not a form at all. Would this definition satisfy Duncan?" - p 45
The poet Robert Duncan is also referred to in Silliman's "BART". I get the impression his work is important to Silliman.
"29. Mallard, drake-if the words change, does the bird remain?
"30. How is it possible that I can imagine I can put that chair into language? There it sits, mute. It knows nothing of syntax. How can I put it into something it doesn't inherently possess?" - p 46
Is this the reasoning, therefore, behind Silliman's way of arranging words in a way that evades pinning down? Does "chair" become a word that defies being put to its usual use in language to refer to a familiar object? But since when does anything have to "inherently possess" knowledge of "syntax" in order to be used in any particular way by language? What I like about Silliman's writing isn't that I think he somehow 'solves' philosophical questions but that he takes a different approach to arrangement. I don't think he 'solves' any philosophical questions at all, the mallard & the drake are still going about their business. Silliman can't turn the chair into language but he can do what other writers do & describe it in a way so that people reading the description will know what he's referring to. What does he want?
"54. Increasingly I find object art has nothing new to teach me. This is also the case for certain kinds of poetry. My interest in the theory of the line has its limits.
"55. The presumption is: I can write like this and "get away with it."
"56. As economic conditions worsen, printing becomes prohibitive. Writers posit less emphasis on the page or book.
"57. "He's content just to have other writers think of him as a poet." What does this mean?
"58. What if there were no other writers? What would I write like?" - p 48
I remember being fresh out of high school in 1971 & being at the Woodlawn Cemetery grounds having a conversation w/ Debbie Sauter. She took great exception to my speaking in "What if" terms & philosophically berated me. I admit to feeling much the same about #58: "What if there were no other writers?" How wd that even happen?! What Silliman wd "write like" might have more to do w/ there being no other humans, e.g.. In other words, his questions are so preposterous that his apparent investigation seems trivial in contrast to other implications.
"71. An offshoot of projectivist theory was the idea that the form fo the poem might be equivalent to the poet's physical self. A thin man to use short lines and a huge man to write at length. Kelly, etc.
"72. Antin's theory is that in the recent history of progressive formas (himself, Schwerner, Rothenberg, MacLow, Higgins, the Something Else writers et al), it has become clear that only dertain domains yield "successful" work. But he has not indicated what these domains are, nor sufficiently defined success." - p 50
More references to other poets. At the time of this bk's release, 1986, there was no commonly available internet so searching for more info on the people mentioned wd've been difficult. What wd a reader not familiar w/ the poetics named have made of it all? #71 wd've been easy enuf: it's not necessary to know that "projectivist theory" refers to the work of Charles Olson & it's not necessary to know the work of Robert Kelly (you can see Kelly in my movie about Franz Kamin entitled "DEPOT (wherein resides the UNDEAD of Franz Kamin)" : on my onesownthoughts YouTube channel here: https://youtu.be/qDwGVNIJbgE - on the Internet Archive here: https://archive.org/details/depot_201906 ).
In #72, however, it wd help the reader if they knew the work of David Antin (see the beginning of my review of David Antin & Charles Bernstein's "A Conversation with David Antin" here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2507335988 ), Armand Schwerner, Jerome Rothenberg (recently deceased), Jackson Mac Low (see my movie entitled "tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE reading Jackson Mac Low's "Asymmetries 1-260"" on my onesownthoughts YouTube channel here: https://youtu.be/0Zn9rl8PBqc ), & Dick Higgins & his Something Else Press (see my review of the Dick Higgins edited "A Something Else Reader" http://idioideo.pleintekst.nl/CriticSomethingElse.html ).
"98. Good v. Bad Poetry. The distinction is not useful. The whole idea assumes a shared set of articulatable values by which to make such a judgment. It assumes, if not the perfect poem, at least the theory of limits, the most perfect poem. How would you proceed to make such a distinction?" - p 53
Agreed. If one were to use such terms one might at least qualify what they mean to you before applying them. It might be more useful to just skip the "good" & the "bad" & go straight to what one's standards are.
"109. So-called non-referential language when structure non-syntactically tends to disrupt time perception. Once recognized, one can begin to structure the disruption. Coolidge, for example, in "The Maintains", uses line, stanza and repetition. Ashberry's <i>Three Poems</i>, not referential but syntactical, does not alter time." - pp 53-54
That seems like quite a claim, to "disrupt time perception". I deduce that that's what Silliman thinks he does. I'm not sure I agree but I find it interesting. It seems to me that if "time perception" is disrupted that a very palpable feeling wd be sensed. I don't think reading Silliman's poetry has that effect on me. It's more a matter of my becoming more aware of unusual technical procedures & the way they disrupt expectations. For me, that's not quite the same thing as disrupting "time perception" - maybe it is for Silliman.
"145. There are writers who would never question the assumptions of non-objective artists (Terry Fox, say, or even Stella or the late Smithson) who cannot deal with writing in the same fashion. Whenever they see certain marks on the page, they always presume that something besides those marks is also present." - p 58
Again, interesting. I wdn't call Terry Fox, whose work I like very much, or Robert Smithson, "non-objective" artists, even if the art criticism of this time (1986) wd've done so. Is Terry Fox's destruction of a flower garden at a museum café in protest of the destruction of the Vietnamese environment w/ Agent Orange & the like "non-objective"? Is Smithson's Spiral Jetty "non-objective"? I can say, tho, that creative people are often only provisionally open-minded - so I agree w/ Silliman's point about writers who can't deal w/ "non-objective" writing. Whether Silliman's writing qualifies as "non-objective" is a different story - it seems to me that his subversion of objectivity depends on objectivity to work. Visual Poets are more "non-objective".
"158. I find myself not only in the position of arguing that all language acts are definitions and that they nonetheless are not essentially referential, but alos that this is not a case specifically limited to an "ideal" or "special" language (such as one might argue poetry to be), but is general, applicable to all."
[..]
"162. If I could make an irrefutable argument that non-referential language does exist (besides, that is, those special categories, such as prepositions or determiners), would I include this in it? Of course I would." - p 60
I wouldn't call any of the writing of Silliman's that I've read "non-referential" nor wd I call #162 "non-referential". Even in Silliman's most 'abstract' writing the effect that occurs for me depends on the referentiality of the language being undermined but not destroyed. Asemic Writing might be more accurately called "non-referential".
"221. Any piece I write precludes the writing of some other piece. As this work is the necessary consequence of previous writings, called poems, so it will also create necessities, ordering what follows. I take this as absolute verification of its poemhood." - p 66
Whatever, that just strikes me as specious logic. One reason why I've been saying for the last 45+ yrs, when asked what my philosophy is, "I had a philosophy once" is to mock philosophy of all stripes. What I mean is that all philosophies seem to be reaching for solidity in a constantly changing world. Silliman's calling his writing poetry is enuf for me but I don't think there's any sort of absolute justifcation that has to make it so for anyone else.
The next section is called "2197", I've friviolously speculated that that's the section's word count. There are 3 ways of organizing the sentences that follow each other in the same order. The 1st is indented sentences that can go onto the next line one tab more to the left. The 2nd is paragraphs. The 3rd is one in wch the 1st sentence starts at the left margin & goes onto the next line if the extra space is needed. The sentance after that starts on the next line, indented where the last line left off. All of the poems have titles that seem to imply a meaning that, then, isn't furthered by the text. The 1st poem is called "I AM MARION DELGADO". Marion Delgado was a 5 yr old boy who, in 1947 California, put a concrete slab on a train track to try to get the train to break it for him. The train wrecked. No one was killed, but people were injured. Delgado's picture was used by the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) 20 yrs on their new left notes. Silliman presumably knew about him b/c of that. W/ that in mind, the title of the poem cd be meant to evoke that Silliman's "non-referential" writing is like that concrete slab set on the language train tracks.
The next poem, in paragraph form, is called "I MEET OSIP BRIK". Brik was a Russian avant-garde writer & critic during the Russian Revolution. Silliman wdn't've met him b/c he died in 1945, Silliman was born in 1946. Of course, he cd be 'meeting' him in a more formal sense. The 1st paragraph is as follows:
"Sidewalks, people waving, is incoming insurgents. Experience of the predicated. Spaces in which land mass. Smell of warm, weather of I. Needle of diamond or pine. These are only Q-tips and have no other morning. The season is not the presence of the new which it recognize. The lower the themes, the higher the life. A needle I suddenly diamond to pine. Great sneeze of sense shake in the loose sleeping. News from the insect room. Blink objects forget lepers here. Several the voice, one the brain." - p 76
All of these poems seem to recycle materials. In that last paragraph I recognize the "incoming insurgents", the "Needle of diamond or pine", the "Q-tips", "The lower" [..], "the higher" etc. I commented in my review of "Ketjak" that such repitions have the interesting effect of creating familiarity w/o there having to be a narrative continuity beyond this formalism. I didn't bother to count or mark all instances of this. Instead I just picked one:
"As Satie grew older, his body connect into Thoreau." (I AM MARION DELGADO, p 69)
"Satie or the art of connect from the flught of Thoreau." (I MEET OSIP BRIK, p 76)
"Satie connect at Thoreau." (RHIZOME, p 81)
"Satie, it is not a personal Thoreau." (WINTER LANDSCAPE WITH SKATERS AND A BIRD TRAP, p 90)
"Thoreau are a Satie connect." (THE JOY OF PHYSICS, p 96)
"Satie based on guilt is
inevitable for those who connect with what they
know to be Thoreau." (SAN FRANCISCO DESTROYED BY FIRE, p 102)
"We connect
Satie with Thoreau." (SAN FRANCISCO DESTROYED BY FIRE, p 105)
"Thoreau are a Satie connect." (THE FOUR PROTOZOAS, p 110)
"How do the Satie connect the Thoreau." (TURK STREET NEWS, p 116)
"A Satie as connect and casual as the Thoreau." (INVASION OF THE STALINOIDS, p 123)
"A Satie that connect ashore by the south Thoreau." (ALLIED GARDENS, p 131)
"The Satie of connect." (THE SCHEME OF THINGS, p 135)
"Connect his name was Thoreau." (CONSIDERATIONS OF REPRESENTABILITY, p 143)
"Connect the Satie, kill the Thoreau." (DO CITY, p 144)
Is Silliman 'trying to say something' about a connection between the composer Erik Satie & the philosopher Henry David Thoreau? Not as far as I can tell - & the variations in the repetitions add to that for me. SO, what we have here may be what Silliman presents as "non-referential". The reader still reads the proper nouns as referring to specific historical figures but they're displaced from their associations in the poem: Satie isn't being used as a composer, Thoreau isn't being used as a philosopher.
I see no reason for the form change from poem to poem. All it seems to do is show us that the form is somewhat arbitrary. I don't know how to correctly format the following in the app I'm using & have it appear correctly on Goodreads (actually, this will appear on my Critics website, only the beginning will show on Goodreads) so I'm just going to left-justify it. Does it really make that much of a difference?
"RHIZOME
"Proliferation of the alphabet world.
Poured
of truck, turned of oranges.
Mushroom out which cloud rose.
Experience is predicated on existence.
Goals we have, should not poems." - p 79
Now, that's incorrect. I'm inclined to believe that the original formatting shd be stuck to. But what happens if I put it into the paragraph formatting?
'RHIZOME
'Proliferation of the alphabet world. Poured of truck, turned of oranges. Mushroom out which cloud rose. Experience is predicated on existence. Goals we have, should not poems.'
Do we learn anything from the changed formatting? I find the paragraph formatting more efficient. Let's say that the 3 formats are playful. What about this?:
"The predicated of my experience exist-
ence.
Recognize new of presence.
Incoming insurgents
stood on sidewalks." - p 80
Given that ""Incoming insurgents" goes past the "exist-" toward the right margin, it seems that the line break of "exist-" to "ence" doesn't serve a purpose necessitated by that right margin. So why have the break?
While the bodies of the poems may be consistently "non-referential", the titles seem to be otherwise. Take "WINTER LANDSCAPE WITH SKATERS AND A BIRD TRAP": That's the name of a Peter Bruegel the Elder painting from 1565. Google Arts & Culture has this to say about it:
"The painting may make reference to the winter of 1564/65 which was, according to the records, particularly harsh.
"The scene doubtless has a deeper meaning, linked to an allegorical interpretation of human existence which was widely held in the 16th century. This conception sees the devotee as a pilgrim crossing a life dotted with dangers and temptations, which he must avoid to reach salvation. Thus, bird traps, like the trap on the right in the foreground, were used in the literature of the time to symbolize of the devil's temptations destined for lost souls (birds traditionally symbolised the soul). Skating scenes in art often portray the uncertain (slippery) nature of existence. Skaters and birds are brought together here both for their obliviousness and their vulnerability to the looming perils."
Is Silliman using he painting to refer to trials & tribulations of existence? I, personally, just see the painting as fantastically skilled & have great appreciation for Breugel. Somehow, the allegory, assuming it's there, is of little or no interest to me, I seem to prefer it as a depiction of life, deeply detailed in observation.
"There are genuine trees within a light
This is the spring between casual and
language.
Stasis believe at rest."
[..]
"Write is what on need.
I visit my gradnmother in the hospital.
Delight of the Geek's.
Time leg pulls,
Not by the envelope, but by the sound." - p 90
There're things subtly 'wrong' in this writing. This, I reckon, is intended to further the non-referentiality. "Stasis believe at rest." wdn't be the same if it were "Stasis believed to be at rest." But then there's the straightforward "I visit my grandmother in the hospital." Does this just mix it up? Make it more unpredictable?
There're repeating vocabularies too. These help create connections w/o relying on their referentiality.
"We went sailing through the loomy air."
[..]
"Sailing the loomy hum of nervous air in head and you get through." - p 92
"THE JOY OF PHYSICS" (p 95), for me, humorously evokes "The Joy of Sex" & "The Joy of Cooking".
"SAN FRANCISCO DESTROYED BY FIRE" (p 98) evokes, again, for me, a newspaper headline &, of course, the April 18, 1906 earthquake & fires.
Some of the syntactical rearrangements are obvious:
"Catch the people, run the bus." (p 98) can be easily put into more order syntax in one's head as "The people run to catch the bus."
I deduce that the use of 'wrong' articles is another device in "non-referntiality".
"The loud sentences of an dogs bark." - p 108
Then again, one doesn't recognize "an" as wrong unless one is reading the sentence referentiallly. & then there's the issue of pun or typo?
"Choices from the genuine langauge." - p 118
As a reading experience, I give this bk 5 stars. As a political bk, as a bk backed by theory, I have my doubts.
idioideo at gmail dot com
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Anti-Neoism page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Audiography page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Bibliography page
to my "Blaster" Al Ackerman index
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Books page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE BYOC page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Censored or Rejected page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Collaborations page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Critic page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE (d) compositions page
to Amir-ul Kafirs' Facebook page
to the "FLICKER" home-page for the alternative cinematic experience
to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's GoodReads profile
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Haircuts page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Home Tapers page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE index page
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Instagram Poetry page
to a listing of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's manifestations on the Internet Archive
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE as Interviewee index
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE as Interviewer index
to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE'S Linked-In profile
to the mm index
to see an underdeveloped site re the N.A.A.M.C.P. (National Association for the Advancement of Multi-Colored Peoples)
to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's Neoism page
to the DEFINITIVE Neoism/Anti-Neoism website
to the Philosopher's Union website
to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE movie-making "Press: Criticism, Interviews, Reviews" home-page
to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE as Reviewer page(s)
to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's Score Movies
to SMILEs
to find out more about why the S.P.C.S.M.E.F. (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Sea Monkeys by Experimental Filmmakers) is so important
to the "tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - Sprocket Scientist" home-page
to Psychic Weed's Twitter page
to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's Vimeo index
to Vine movies relevant to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE made by Ryan Broughman
to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's presence in the Visual Music Village
for info on tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's tape/CD publishing label: WIdémoUTH
to a very small selection of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's Writing