It's one of three related pieces by Ronsen that Geof posted in his entry of 24 September 2006. I find all three, and Geof's comments on them, Very Interesting. One of the ways they are interesting to me, and maybe might be interesting to two or three other people in the world, is taxonomically. What in the world are they? (And each is a scrap of text like the one in this one, with a background like this one has.) I think few would argue against calling them collages, text and graphic collages. I at first thought them not visual poems because the texts seem labels or comments on the graphics. But the texts, considered by themselves, are treated texts, a form of visual poetry. But what if they weren't? I think I'd then call them captioned illumages. As they are, they are illustrated visual poems--sort of.

As I always say after ramblings like my present one, one can certainly get full value out of the work without knowing what it is. However, I find I get more out of works I can properly identify. It's somewhat like finding out whether to look at them through a microscope or telescope. Here, we have found poem--an unconventional text undeleted out of (or disconcealed from) a conventional text. Recognizing this solidly sets us up, I feel, for appreciating the work as a whole as similarly disconcealed from a simple hill.

There's more to my argument than that, but I'm too tired to say more right now.