Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Jim wrote, in part: "But when confronted with a statement like "2+3=7", my curiousity simply isn't strong enough to want to go exploring. I'm curious as to what my fellow 88vers think about why ED would make a poem's construction deliberately hard." Al now adds: I don't disagree, really, with the passage above and I am not unsympathetic with the feelings motivating your comment about Dickinson's perhaps sloppy or imprecise (as opposed to deliberately hard) use of "as" in "Of Chambers as the Cedars." But after so many years of assuming the unvarying signifying truth of meaning made on the analogy of the certitude of 2+3=5--of being taught by all my teachers to assume it--when someone comes along who seems to know what she wants and insists upon 2+3=7, I *am* curious to know more--about her, about this different meaning-making system, and about what constitutes "7" (as opposed to the usual, expected, conventional "5") in her vocabulary. Gertrude Stein, here we come! (a little later....)