on Er

     Most immediately striking about Er is her relationship with nature.  She speaks to her reader as an ambassador, in a sense, as a mother might explain a father's actions to their children.  She and nature are old friends, but she never interpolates herself into the text.  She is merely a voice, and though humans and nature are one and the same, she is careful, conscious of her place, of who is speaking and, so, her function.  She has an imperative tone but a humility one cannot deny.  The only agent here is nature.  She just has a better seat.  She transcribes the language of nature onto the page as she is compelled.  The text flows in whichever direction nature intends.
     I've never really considered myself a poet.  I'm more of a Hemingway, tip of the iceberg, kind of girl.  This requires trust, on the writer's part of his/her own effectivity, and of the reader's competence to "get it".  Er does not seem to care if anyone "gets it".  Hers is a different mission.  Nature speaks for itself - Er just writes what she hears.