Abstract： A practice of time-sensitive “mimacro reading，” coextensive with “InOutside” counter-reading I introduced last year， this piece seeks to show why and how scaled attention to the contextually grounded materiality of reading matters especially today in times of planetary turbulences， micro to macro. Engaging further Marjorie Perloff on microreading/microwriting and Charles Bernstein’s frame-unlocking strategies， this time I draw insights from Erica Hunt’s take in 1990 on “oppositional poetics” as well while bringing Stephen Best and Sharon Marcus’s more recent， timely “surface reading” to bear on this collaborative scene and stage of reading in 2020.
　　Key words： InOutside Reading; Mimacro Reading; Counter-reading; Surface Reading; Oppositional Poetics; Charles Bernstein; Erica Hunt; Claudia Rankine; Marjorie Perloff; The Bible; Stephen Best; Sharon Marcus; Immedia
　　Author： Kyoo Lee， currently Distinguished Professor at Yanbian University （Yanji 133002， China） and Professor of Philosophy at The City University of New York （New York NY 10075， USA）， is a theorist， writer， critic， editor， traveler， reader.
　　標题：微/宏观阅读A：一种在“圣经”尺度上的探讨
　　内容摘要：微/宏观阅读是一种对时间敏感的实践，同延于我去年论述过的“内/外部”反阅读。在当下这一全球出现大变动的时代，从微观到宏观地去对阅读行为的建基于语境的物质性给予相应的关注，显得尤为重要，本文就是试图对其原因和方式进行探讨。这是2020年围绕阅读而展开的一次协作性努力，得益于埃里卡·亨特1990年发表的关于“对立诗学”的洞见，本文进一步回应了玛乔瑞·帕洛夫的微阅读和微写作以及查尔斯·伯恩斯坦的框架解锁策略。在这一场景中或舞台上出现的还有斯蒂芬·贝斯特和莎朗·马库斯，本文同样论及了他们晚一些时候，但及时地发表的关于“表层阅读”的论述。
　　关键词：内/外部;微/宏观阅读;反阅读;表层阅读;对立诗学;查尔斯·伯恩斯坦;艾丽卡·亨特;克劳迪娅·兰金;玛乔瑞·帕洛夫;《圣经》;斯蒂芬·贝斯特;莎伦·马库斯;及时媒介
　　作者简介：李圭，延边大学教授，纽约城市大学哲学教授，理论家、作家、评论家、编辑、旅行家、读者。
　　I don’t do it for the money. I’ve got enough， much more than I will ever need. I do it to do it.
　　— Donald J. Trump， Trump： The Art of the Deal
　　What a set of nothingburgers！ Surely it’s time to read differently， to read differentially， to respond to texts， as does Kyoo Lee， with all the infrathin attention we can muster.
　　— Marjorie Perloff， “Microreading/Microwriting”
　　Frames frame reading. A traditional， or frame-locked， curriculum is designed so that each of its elements fits within a single overall scheme. [...] In contrast， anti-lock syllabi—and approaches to reading suggested by Kyoo Lee and Marjorie Perloff—emphasize a performative and interdisciplinary approach that may undercut the passive learning patterns that currently cripple many of our educational efforts. Indeed， this is the purpose of Lee’s “InOutside.”
　　— Charles Bernstein， “Paradigma” 　　Reading begins where reading ends， which might be why reading is reading， or readding.
　　I hope there is some sharable value in this otherwise shameless exercise in mediated self-reference， which involves continuing some “InOutside” counter-reading， a mode I set out to articulate last time. This time， I illustrate this notion further through a scale-attentive and time-sensitive “mimacroreading” practice， an act of registering and amplifying something mega- and meta-significant in otherwise ordinary， almost missable micro-gestures or traces in a text.
　　Why read at all if not for a recognition， why this repeated reckoning， reasoning？ Reading the present as a future present in the past is both a risk and a task implicit in this hermeneutic replay.
　　I DID IT TO DO IT： MY WAY
　　June already … ready or not
　　… and another good old new day goes by as I write …
　　… this， I suggest we read，
　　readd：
　　June 2， 2020
　　WASHINGTON — With about an hour to go before a citywide curfew was set to take effect on Monday， demonstrators outside the White House were caught by surprise as throngs of police officers in riot gear spilled out from the northeastern corner of Lafayette Square， deploying force to cut a path across the street toward St. John’s Episcopal Church.
　　Moments later， out of sight of many of the protesters who had been driven back， President Trump walked past the church steps and produced a Bible.
　　Standing outside the church， which had been damaged and boarded up after days of demonstrations against police brutality， Mr. Trump struck different poses， displaying the book for cameras， ostensibly upside-down at times.
　　“Is that your Bible？” a reporter asked. “It’s a Bible，” Mr. Trump replied. （Montague）
　　A translingual translation， English to English：
　　“Is that your Bible？”： Do you read the Bible？ or Are you here as a practicing Christian？ （FYI： Like a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle？）
　　“It’s   Bible.”： Blocking out the question itself， the point， wielding a condescendingly tonalized tautology， the speared shield = Duh （Obviously [not]） = a cocktail of what Derald Wing Sue calls “microinsult （often unconscious）” （Sue 42） often underlying “avoidant behavior or purposefully discriminatory actions” （42） and “microassault （often conscious）” （42）， all becoming part of a “toxic rain” （3） of microaggression.
　　“  ”： hold it， hold onto that hysterical/historical tautology， its ambireferentialsimplexity， and note what a difference a， cuttingly accentuatedas such， is making; see what is slipping through， falling through the cracks that is also seemingly opening up at once， how clearly elusive it turns. 　　“Holding It Aloft， He Incited a Backlash. What Does the Bible Mean to Trump？，” reads the headline in The New York Times on that “much-discussed photo op at St. John’s Church with which the President of the United States began the week” of June 1， 2020 （Montague）.
　　On June 5， Day 5， James Poniewozik the chief TV critic for The New York Times， stunned by the stunt， found himself having to ask this head-on， in-outwardly citing the collective fury， a query：
　　As Images of Pain Flood TV， ‘Where Is Our Leader？’
　　Or， I read：                                                   Where Is Our Reader？
　　The loopy resonances between the two head-under-lined queries：
　　What does the Bible Mean to Trump？    ‘Where Is Our Leader？’
　　and U， my dear reader， too
　　might get a sense of microwaved time， a
　　micro-history charged in that
　　 crypto-currency of time
　　time and
　　again.
　　
　　I， too， linger on， ponderingly， as one sometimes does at such turbulent moments.
　　“I think it was very symbolic，” Trump said last week. “I did hold up a Bible. I think that’s a good thing， not a bad thing.”
　　— Lee Moran， “Trump Accused Of Exploiting Sacred Symbols By Clergy Of Church Where He Married Melania”
　　He did not pray. [...] He did not mention George Floyd， he did not mention the agony of people who have been subjected to this kind of horrific expression of racism and white supremacy for hundreds of years. （Rogers）
　　The litany of what should have taken place in front of that “Church of the Presidents” at that stage， on that stage， The Right Rev. Mariann Budde， the Episcopal bishop for Washington， DC， points out， is clear （See “History”）. The nationwide protest over the death—dying， becoming dead， a durational repeated death—of George Floyd that had been going on since the horrific incident of police brutality on May 25， 2020， further intensified by this presidential performance of an evidently willful， painfully evident non-reading， is still spreading as I write this down.
　　Although not having much money， I， too， might just have to “do it to do it” in the meantime.
　　A PLAY ON PRAY/PREY—
　　As “members of the clergy at The Episcopal Church of Bethesda-by-the-Sea” had to point out：
　　“The problem is not that Mr. Trump stood outside a church with a Bible in hand，” three clergy members wrote in a statement first shared on the church’s website on Jun 2， the day after the photo-op， which gained traction online toward the end of this week. 　　“The problem is that he used violence to get there and exploited sacred symbols for purely political purposes，” they said.
　　The church’s clergy noted how “we regularly pray for the president and other political leaders” so “that they might be led to govern with equity and justice， bringing life to those in the shadow of death.” （Moran）
　　That white-Ivanka-bag-sized copy of the Bible coming out of a Bible-sized bag of Ivanka Trump’s （FYI： a Max Mara purse retailed at $1，540）， handed over then to her handy daddy， turned out a sort of bomb of time， although it was （meant to be） “a good thing， not a bad thing，” while “it” is specifically obscured as this grabber of a truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth declines to：
　　“get into it. Because to me， that’s very personal，” he said. “The Bible means a lot to me， but I don’t want to get into specifics.” （O’Neil）
　　Curiously， the Bible not being Mr. Trump’s “second favorite book of all time” but his first that “nothing beats，” which “we take all the way，” as he was reportedly saying to a cheering crowd back in 2015 on the campaign trail， if “he did not pray” but played， he would still be a “good” guy， not a bad guy： an incredibly tremendously good dealer in the art of preying without paying. What matters to him is that he just did “a good thing， not a bad thing，” which is also as specific as the current President of the United States could get about the symbolism of it all （O’Neil）.
　　One must also wonder what happened then to that diligent Hegelian reader who said “I wake up most mornings very early， around six， and spend the first hour or so of each day reading the morning newspapers”—maybe he meant the Bible， maybe he reads both while watching TV？ （Trump）.
　　What does matter in these massive meteorological crises upon crises all over the world， not just here？
　　 [...] We’re out
　　to repair the future. There’s an umbrella
　　by the door， not for yesterday but for the weather
　　that’s here. [...] We are here for the storm
　　that’s storming because what’s taken matters.
　　— Claudia Rankine， “Weather”
　　“What’s taken” in deed “matters” and what’s taking place materializes fast and furious and
　　Friends too tired to see differences，
　　This， Marx dissociated：
　　“Equal right … presupposes inequality，
　　Different people are not equal one to another.”
　　[...]
　　When labor will have ceased to be a mere means of 　　supporting life，
　　whether it was “impossible for matter to think？”
　　Duns Scotus posed.
　　— Louis Zukofsky， [A-8]， “A”
　　Note the weight of this “a Bible，” a biblical reality TV TV-framed there. See the mimacro massiveness of that otherwise mere textual object grand petite a （une Bible anglaise） held “backwards and seemingly upside down” （O’Neil）.
　　Note back how instantly it turns iconic， into an instagrammatico-material event， biblical and otherwise， immeasurable either way： how to read the booking of this book usually carried around in the crook of one’s arm or in a shopping bag or tote wherever fitting， how to register its portable， transitory， readily “quotable” resonances， its inflammatory and inflammable magnitude， how to get it with a scopic elasticity， again， mimacro， at scale.
　　What might the mimacro might get right， eventually？
　　[Insert/Imagine a screenshot of a twitter message on the Bible from the current U.S. President and stare at it for a while.]
　　Again， “a” Bible as a media-magnetized prop prompting a protest （plus a praise in parallel， as projected） shows how a meaning emerges nowadays （Jankowicz） across the globe. I am thinking of bullet points， powerpoints， executive summary … those curious metaphors of military dictation， control， execution，and uniformity： assortments， networks， multi-directional flows of bullet-sized tags， stock phrases， sensorealized keywords， slogans， passwords， codes， and caches in the age of neuro-viral semiocapitalismand benevolenttechnoautocracyare often not only produced and consumed instagrammatologically at a twitteringly-spaced TikTok pace but also constantly repackaged andrecycled， and prolifically rebaked and refueled， practically everywhere at any given moment， almost all at once.
　　So read back this “trump card of reading” （Lee， “InOutside”） including， more precisely，non-reading as a form or part of reading circulated as such. See how this scene ismedia-played with the book itself raised up like a block of American-processed cheesealready sliced and ready to be slotted somewhere.
　　Now， this is whereLudwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations （1953） into language games meets Roman Jakobson （1960）’s communicative functions of language meets J. L. Austin’s How to Do Things With Words （1962） meets Marshall McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message” （1964） meets the twenty-first century TV-reality of the quasi-Lacanian real meets the Rust Belt meets the Bible Belt meets surveillance technology， where reading becomes “imMEDIAtedly” （Lee， “InOutside”） wirelessly indistinguishable and inseparable from watching， listening， tapping ... It feels as if nowadays in the era of IoT （Internet of Things） not only everyone but everything were reading and writing， to and against one another， on mimacro scales across the board 24/7. 　　I will unpack this point further in a subsequent piece， but here， suffice to show this， that， as Marjorie Perloff points out， “in our digital age， the act of reading/writing is qualified by its alternatives. Here I plead guilty” （170）， and so do I.
　　imMEDIAtely： Here Goes the InOutsidereader Again
　　I， as a digital immigrant like many colleagues in the academe today， also seem to benefit quite mightily from my own naturalized receptivity to media-oriented theoretical models focusing on， for instance， “distant” reading （Franco Moretti） that is not so claustrophobically close， and “surface” reading （Stephen Best and Sharon Marcus） that is meant to counterbalance the “symptomatic” or neurotic sort myopically fixated on “a layer that conceals， as clothing does skin， or encloses， as a building’s facade does its interior”（Best and Marcus 9）：
　　We take surface to mean what is evident， perceptible， apprehensible in texts; what is neither hidden nor hiding; what， in the geometrical sense， has length and breadth but no thickness， and therefore covers no depth. A surface is what insists on being looked at rather than what we must train ourselves to see through. Many types of reading， some quite old， some fairly new， might come under the rubric of “surface reading.” （Best and Marcus 9）
　　I， too， an inoutsidereader， appreciate and wish to practice this sort of reading not too close （closed or cloistered） but closely in tune with the contemporary nodes， modes， conditions， and clusters of interpretative practices and the digital humanities， where big data meets data-mining meets pattern recognition meets remapping and digital remastering and so on. Distance rather than depth， no symptoms but surfaces， reading as decoding： we get that， I see it too. Yet， what lies
　　… under（standing all） that …
　　Staying on the surface， one could become a better scanner in fact， a scanner （of the） in-between， not unlike a prescient feng shui master who reads inter-relationships， the confluential ecology of things and events concurrently situated as such rather than isolated objects merely linked or associated. So， a good reader in this more free-flowing sense would sense something significant lying underneath—or hovering around and simmering through—it all， almost imMEDIAtely， something mega in mini， macro in micro，titanic in tiny， and vice versa， tinytanic or titany.
　　This kind and level of digitally recalibrated “reading between the lines，” links， and clicks can also incubate extensive and long-lasting social potentials. Imagine a deep and quick reading， not just a quick dip or trip，  a stage， a near-magical moment resulting from hours and years of rigorous training， guided practices， and meaningfully embodied re-search. If machines can now benefit from so-called “deep learning，” why not human machines？ Learning to actively and significantly counter-scan and archive a sprawling series and networks of signals by mobilizing （co-）reading aids， bodies， devices， platforms， portals， and indeed rooms， online and offline， all such tools and tombs， can and indeed do vitally help many， not just one or privileged few， access， process， manage， distribute， evaluate， and create data fields together faster and better， more closely and distantly than ever. Traces of life “democalligraphically” （Lee， ‘“Right： to Write__”’） crowdsourced from multiple viewpoints and data-points are the trees of life that would plant themselves. 　　So， by going under a text， I mean going under—and above—the skin of a text， touching its “deeper strata，” as Matthew Jockers says：
　　Close reading， digital searching， will continue to reveal nuggets， while the deeper veins lie buried beneath the mass of gravel layered above.
　　[...] More interesting， more exciting， than panning for nuggets in digital archives is the ability to go beyond the pan and exploit the trommel of computation to process， condense， deform， and analyze the deeper strata from which these nuggets were born， to unearth， for the first time， what these corpora really contain. （9-10）
　　“Going beyond the pan” to “unearth” what has been incorporated into textual bodies： focusing on the inner flesh of a flashpoint of reading， I also continue to imagine that the threefold notion of the surface succinctly summarized by Best and Marcus as “Surface as materiality，” “the intricate verbal structure of literary language，” and “an affective and ethical stance” （9-10）， would become more vitally generative and sustainable if we keep the door more structurally open there or at least ajar more micromacro-specifically for the philopoetic cultivation and collectivization of the sort of e-literacy of a fly on the wall， its e-motional elasticity and reflexivity， in particular. This way， televised multimedia networks， centrally controlled or commercially clustered， on whatever scale they operate， national or international， local or global， provincial or planetary， or all of such， would not simply enter one’s cortex but become reading matters for critical， creative， cortical co-ops.
　　Again， I will unpack this point further later， but here， suffice to show this first， an example.
　　EPISTEMOLOGY/EPIDEMIOLOGY—OR—LOGIC/LOGISTIC
　　Here remains an issue that is persistently epistemological as well as epidemiological， to which I seem to remain epi-alert too， in part as one trained in phenomenology， classical and otherwise.
　　Likewise：
　　The rise of logistics is rapid. Indeed， to read today in the field of logistics is to read a booming field， a conquering field. In military science and in engineering of course， but also in business studies， in management research， logistics is everywhere. And beyond these classic capitalist sciences， its ascent is echoed ahistorically in the emerging fields of object-oriented philosophy and cognitive neuroscience， where the logistical conditions of knowledge production go unnoticed， but not the effects. [...] In war without end， war without battles， only the ability to keep fighting， only logistics， matters. （Harney and Moten 88） 　　These wild wild west platforms of reading， of real-time， archival， alternatively altered contents and form of reading （and writing， including counter-writing） contemporize the now-point， where “justice by iPhone” （Bellafante） is indeed justifiable to a certain extent， quite amply.
　　Yet， these seemingly seamlessly connected spaces， nexus， of reading and textual spacing and splicing are where things get “covered” in that still quasi-classically， phenomenologically， psychoanalytically， unsettlingly complex senses of the word： “covering” an event on the platform where the surface is the king also often becomes—follows， reproduces， recasts—a way of covering it up as in dressing it up， as Kenji Yoshino observes in the book on the bodies of law， Covering： the Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights （2006）. As deftly demonstrated in this superb phenomenological analysis of law in （in）action， institutional closet management as a potent analogy discloses the cryptically infrared workings of logos， which should then be also read with a kind of infraready reading glasses， with all the detective skills we can utilize， to echo Perloff again. For this is where the closet comes out not exactly as some hidden space or recess where secrets as secrets are suppressed， repressed， etc.， such being the very conventional connotations. Rather， on the contrary， here the closet itself is out in plain sight， with its liberally glitzy cover， in the Times Magazine， as a The New York Times headline， etc. In other words， “the true message is concealed， as usual， in a dummy message， and the whole is enciphered in one of the legitimate systems” （Gaines 5）， and the issue is how to read the （infrared） surface of that dummy （message）.
　　When vaguery meets fakery in the rhetorical factory of transparency defensively constructed， insulated， and expanded as such， the in-your-face trickery of covering something up while opening it up becomes the rule of the game， a cryptogrammatological play that relies on the mass game of de facto non-reading that engineers functional illiteracy where one only needs to register what—which one—counts as good/in/on， and which one bad/out/off， to keep scoring points.
　　Then it， the message merely and densely and serially shown， instantly becomes a metonymically atomized “it” at every turn， whose transcendental clothes are the naked emperor， a cloud of its own of various scales， sizes， and shapes in need of a（n other） caption， at times a long（er） pause. 　　Here’s another， quick example from the word on the street these days. The iphonic smartness with which the digital “Army” of K-pop fans is currently reterritorializing the digiscape of toxic political machinations with the counter-targeted flooding of replaced images and the strategic enactment of cancel culture is notably efficacious， smart. Evidently， on such a surface level that is never simply superficial but ever so super-significant， more people across the board and globe do seem to “get it” more quickly and clearly. Such seems part and parcel of the demogrammatological power of shared seeing， of a shared platform， where presence can be co-imMEDIAtedly， repeatedly synchronized. As the screen and the street bi-directionally merge through and converge on the collective semi-cinematic gaze now turning into a climactic rage too big to be contained by any cinema theatre， the infrared graphics of the proverbial white elephant in the room too is turning into something of an infographics in the making. Yet， again， covering alone， in other colors， will not fix the problem underneath： literally， it only covers， for the time being.
　　Here is a partially literalized allegory of that white elephant today. In a recent “Political Memo： As Public Opinion Shifts on Racism， Trump Digs In，” “（the） white people” （too） as a color-coded category appears no less than four times， something worth noting even in passing：
　　Mr. Trump has portrayed protesters as “terrorists” and extremists while praising most law enforcement officers as “great people.” Yet in a Monmouth University poll released last week， 57 percent of Americans — including a majority of white people — said the anger that led to the protests was completely justified. Even among self-described conservatives， 65 percent said the protesters’ frustrations were at least somewhat justified.
　　“So many white people have taken this to heart，” Ms. Holmes Norton said.
　　“This is a watershed moment，” he said， remarking that the white people calling into his show were watching the protests “more open-mindedly than I’ve ever heard before.”
　　As Mitch Landrieu， the former New Orleans mayor， put it： “America is grabbing white people’s faces and saying， ‘Look at this， do not turn away’ — and they’re not.” （Martin et al.）
　　In other words， in the presidential evangelical virtue signaling so intended， many folks imMEDIAtedly sensed a vice signified instead， getting “it” （otherwise—register the flip here） right there. 　　For what’s been inscribed
　　otherwise
　　requires deeper explicating
　　At stake seems not so much a question of reference as a force of transference， X being ferried.
　　A move， the movement of a social qi， a psychosomatic energetic flow in that “weather” of ours. Another pause， for the sky， the scarred face of the earth.
　　SIDE-VIEW MIRROR OBJECTS MAY APPEAR SMALLER OR CLOSER
　　Band-Aid can close an open wound for now， sure， yet how long can it cover a bleeding heart？
　　And this is where “frame-unlocked” reading—to bring Charles Bernstein and his Irving Goffman to bear on a further mimacro point I would like to amplify—goes inoutside elastically （“Paradigma” 15-17）. I find myself linger here and there longer， retro-deconstructively concerned with the conundrum of “the other （side）”： even within progressive social movements and calls for transformative change， I still sense this recurrent， almost recalcitrant， tendency toward the psycho-compensatory recycling of ready-to-reuse binary categories such as “black and/vs white，” “us and/vs them，” “inside the border and/vs outside，” which end up further cementing the very logic， pattern， structure， habit of binary “girdle-making” （Bernstein， “Paradigma” 14） and marking.
　　Did I say—or you hear—marketing？ Should we buy into this grammar of racing itself， where one would win or lose but hardly learn or unlearn？
　　As Thomas Chatterton Williams points out quite bluntly， there is （still） this persistent problematic/programmatic “conception of the ‘other’ that is as familiar and unchallenging as Top 40 music—so easy to listen to and share precisely because it requires so little imaginative exertion”： “We Need to Stop Measuring Black Lives by Their Whiteness” or non-whiteness， in other words. The epistemo-paradigmatic blindness and violence of the post-structural binary itself， too， should be critically examined sooner， not later.
　　On a more quotidian， personal， micro-level， what needs to evolve is the whole， basic， mind-set， an individual（’s） orientation and attunement. A reset， actual and fundamentally transformational， needs to set in， so to speak， a mode and mood that would confront its own political unconscious， its transcontinental and transhistorical massiveness.
　　“The real change needs to be a rerouting of the interior beliefs” as Claudia Rankine put it， writing five years ago today， warning against “The American tendency to normalize situations by centralizing whiteness” （“The Condition of Black Life Is One of Mourning”）， in the midst of this interminable， real street theatre of cruelty， of Black mourning so fundamentally and fibrously constitutive of American culture from Chicago to Charleston， Ferguson to Staten Island. 　　If those micro-Band-Aids are practically all we have for now， as the next first step， how about then starting to imagine some kind of macro-Band-Aid that is not just a box or stack of Band-Aid in your bathroom transferred from an Amazon warehouse？ Prime FREE Same-Day Delivery？ Beside the point.
　　We’d need， I’m saying， with some others here， to find some ways to start breaking （up） those “bonds of opposition” （Hunt 198）， those binarized， naturalized， normalized， bio-aesthetico-politicized habits of the mindbody， as Erica Hunt put it， who started exploring this point back in 1990， first “in the Spring of 1988” （195）， whose text I am re-reading today， retro-futurally， so to speak：
　　In communities of color， oppositional frames of reference are the borders critical to survival. Long treatment as an undifferentiated mass of other by the dominant class fosters collective identity and forms of resistance. In a sense， then， oppositional groupings， be they based on class， race， gender or critical outlook， have traditionally been dependent， in part， on external definition by the dominant group—the perceived hostility of the dominant class shapes the bonds of opposition. And that quasidependent quality extends even further： we get stuck with the old codes even as we try to negate them. We experience acute difference： autonomy without self-determination and group identity without group empowerment. （Hunt 198）
　　Try and get unstuck “with the old codes”： How does one go about reflecting on and dealing with this densely explosive issue of embodied identities thus made and marred， with care and clarity， rather than charity clothed in some semi-universalist fanfare？ And without simply going neutrally socially thirdly gray or rainbowy or whatever-you-want-today.
　　NOT JUST NEXT TO US BUT NEXUS IN US
　　Some kind of connective tissues， nexus in us， inoutside the text that enables reading in the first place， expanding the horizon of reading beyond its nominally guarded， generically gendered， class-classified， xeno-racialized borders， whether hardened or gardened： such is what I seem after in a text， the intra-choral operator and auto-generator that keeps contempotentializing itself against various hermeneutic pressure points or checkpoints or reward points.
　　A sort of breathing room allowed within and throughout a text is a space for counter-reading， where Hunt’s “oppositional poetics，” too， would unfold. It is where oppositional， much more nuanced than its usual sense such as confrontational or dialectically opposite， is to be heard relationally and circumstantially： op-positional and op-posing as in expressive and experimental voguing， jazzing， with some such （re）generative vision， “op，” kept not just alive but vitally dynamic and co-creative. In turn， when such oppositional literary initiatives unfold “in recognition of the scope of the submerged， disconnected and violent character of contemporary life，” they start forming “[...] a field of related projects which have moved beyond skepticism to a critically active stance against forms of domination” （Hunt 196）. As Hunt goes on to reaffirm in transformatively inter or cross-categorical terms： “By oppositional， I intend， generously， dissident cultures as well as ‘marginalized’ cultures， cutting across class， race and gender” （196）. We repeat： cutting across. 　　Such “a multiple focus and means of opposition” would demonstrate：
　　what function writing in the present can perform in dispersing a domination that monopolizes public and private life. Certainly writing alone cannot enlarge the body of opposition to the New Wars， but it may enhance our capacity to strategically read our condition more critically and creatively in order to interrupt and to join. （Hunt 214）
　　Cultivate—I am hearing the poet-critic saying—a lung capacity for counter-cogitation， articulation， and vocalization against the suffocating pressures of unquestioned， collaterally soul-crushing conformity， its number-crunching uniformity and normativity. I am also hearing some Alisoun Sings （2019） via Caroline Bergvall， where they ask： “Wat if I present as a crowd， a school of beings deep and elemental， wisdom aroused，” as “constellations， a field” （15）.
　　This would mean working real ‘smart，’ not just through those smartphones no one actually really owns despite all that iphonic rhetoric. This would mean working across the institutionalized grammar of place-holding per se， the sort that produces “the Black Place Holder” among others only to keep recycling that metonymic logic of regulated make-up， “a role model from outer space” （Hunt 199）. Again：
　　The simple negations that form the borders of opposition， the residues of old encounters between dominant and subordinate stand as prison walls as much as they suggest shelters， collapsing from obsolescence or repeated attacks， constraining the new languages that must be made for resistance. （Hunt 198）
　　Along with this grounded and impassioned call for the new， yes dare one say， “new languages that must be made for resistance” （Hunt 198） （although， yes， one mightbe agnostic or skeptical about where and how such newness could spring from especially in the current climate of pandemic exhaustion and ecological despair）， familiar yet still helpful is this reminder from Hunt that reading and writing as a set practice that tends to go together is a social act that can and often does counter the monopolization of cultural resources， idioms， legacies， futurity， etc.， including the institutional monopoliticization of cultures’ expressive capacities and its lung localities.
　　This kind and level of collective work of op-poetic self-care， this turn within oppositional poetics to overlapping communities in which members co-relate with interactive empathy and reciprocal support， becomes and remains a matter of creative survival， not a luxury， especially since for “communities of color， oppositional frames of reference are the borders critical to survival”： 　　Inside what is rich about the wonder of having survived at all， of being a people or group still on its feet are also the values that make us suspicious of various traditions. We judge then as we have been judged， sanctioning the differences that are our common property. （Hunt 198）
　　As Bernstein， the unblocker， notes， as well：
　　Erving Goffman’s counterintuitive idea of reading， formulated in Frame Analysis， is that an “event” （including an art “object”） does not speak for itself but is recognizable only by its frame or context. For this reason， the discussion about an event can exceed the duration of the “event” itself. An event， or work of art， like a dream， may elicit multiple—incommensurable or discrepant—frames. Some frames are sticky， become stigma. Frames are cued or keyed， and， for Goffman， what is out-of-frame is often （in the end） most significant： what is is defined by what it isn’t. （“Paradigma” 15）
　　The conceptual key bears repeating： “what is out-of-frame is often （in the end） most significant： what is is defined by what it isn’t.” Be a gate-maker， not a keeper， be an infrareadybordereader.
　　REad on.Again， the idea is to try and get unstuck from those “sticky” frames while staying critically， creatively and cortically engaged in mimacroinoutsiding： surgically cutting across， counter-acting all sorts， forms， forces of discursively regimented， often infrared， institutional space-holding， herding， hogging including fraternal， oligarchical hell-raising， while remobilizing and repurposing the very plasticity of framing in the living room， reading room， courtroom， zoomroom， chatroom， playroom， restroom， situation room … where what lies inside is shaped by what happens “outside.”
　　RElate while reADDing. As Perloff， the infraradar detector extraordinaire， writes：
　　In poetry， as Ernest Fenollosa succinctly put it in The Chinese Written Character， “relations are more important than the things related” （22）.
　　Note that this approach to reading poetry is by no means equivalent to the New Criticism or even to what is usually called Formalism. It is customary today to dismiss the latter as “mere” close reading， the “mere” explication of the words on the page， without considering their political or cultural or anthropological valence. But Duchamp， Stein， and de Campos—all of them themselves artists or poets—knew better. They understood that the poet’s role is not to “say”—any writer of nonfiction can do that—but how to make a new construct from the language pool. （172） 　　iREpeat， dare we say： “how to make a new construct from the language pool”—BINGO. Not so much merely or nearly new as newly mere， mimacro-mere.
　　The social media， unfortunately， work against this process. They urge us， at every moment， to skim， to click on the BREAKING NEWS which usually are not “news” at all， and to reduce reading to the intake of information bytes that are digested and then forgotten as quickly as is fast food. All the more reason to sensitize ourselves to the infrathin， to unmask the daily news cycle by practicing what Kyoo Lee calls counter-reading. （Perloff 172）
　　… SPELLING OUT CAUTION
　　Circling back then alone together to that mid-point of this counter-reading/raiding exercise …
　　Professor Austin， Mr. Felicitous Perlocutionary： how do you do and would you do all those things with this sort of archaeological flashpoints uncontainable per se， these momentum-building mimacro pressure points now instagrammatologically delivered and twitteringlytransmitted？
　　Professor Perloff’s razor-sharp，
　　kinetically-sustained attention to the quantum aesthetic fields
　　of infrared construction and composition， including L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry，
　　“an invitation to read with and through a multripillocation of frames，
　　‘InOutside’ in Lee’s sense” （Bernstein， “Paradigma” 2），
　　keeps the door of textured perceptions open and openly gay à la Stein
　　where the minute-by-minute self-differentiation of the world unfolds through
　　the infinites（timon）imal intra/infra/inter-metamorphoses of verbalized objects where
　　they are presumed to be the same by the same name; ‘but isn’t the same at least the same？” （171）， Perloff has this philophonopoetic Wittgenstein investigator see and speak for themself by reventriquilizing it， that semi-italicized mimacro skit from the Philosophical Investigations，
　　and so， in other words， and in other worlds in the words of the other， and so on，
　　“the more I ventured out into the open the more I find it is behind me and I am moving not
　　toward some uninhabited space but deeper into a maelstrom of criss-crossing inscriptions.
　　The open is a vanishing point—the closer I get to it the greater the distance from which
　　it beckons” （17）， as Bernstein， a permanent resident contrarian inoutside philopoetree puts it in
　　My Way （1999）.
　　Water closing over the surface where the rock plunges in. Our recovered histories are filled with tales of the wounded， of marginalization， involuntary silence， mental and physical illness and death. They are the metonymic correlates of the wounded social body; the fractured desires of opposition and subordinated groups spell out caution. 　　— Erica Hunt， “Notes for an Oppositional Poetics”
　　Works Cited
　　Austin， J. L. How To Do Things With Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge， MA： Harvard UP， 1975.
　　Bellafante， Ginia. “Can Anna Wintour Survive the Social Justice Movement？” The New York Times June 11， 2020.
　　Bergvall， Caroline. Alisoun Sings. Brooklyn： Nightboat Books， 2019.
　　Bernstein，Charles. My Way： Speeches and Poems. Chicago： U of Chicago P， 1999.
　　---. “The Body of the Poem.” Critical Inquiry 44.3 （2018）： 582-585.
　　---. “Paradigma.” Foreign Language and Literature Research 1 （2020）： 13-24.
　　Best， Stephen and Sharon Marcus. “Surface Reading： An Introduction.” Representations 108.1 （2009）： 1-21.
　　Gaines， Helen Fouché. Cryptanalysis： A Study of Ciphers and Their Solution. Mineola， NY： Dover， 1989.
　　Harney， Stefano and Fred Moten. The Undercommons： Fugitive Planning & Black Study. Brooklyn： Minor Compositions， 2013.
　　“History.” Saint John’s Church. June 7， 2020<https：//stjohns-dc.org/welcome-to-saint-johns-church/history>.
　　Hunt， Erica. “Notes for an Oppositional Poetics.” The Politics of Poetic Form. Ed. Charles Bernstein. New York： Roof Books， 1990. 197-212.
　　Jakobson， Roman. “Closing Statements： Linguistics and Poetics.” Style In Language. Ed. Thomas A. Sebeok. Cambridge， MA： MIT P， 1960. 350-377.
　　Jankowicz， Mia. “Trump’s Evangelical Base is Ecstatic Over His Bible Photo Op.” Insider. June 4， 2020. Aug. 19， 2020 <www.insider.com/the-christian-right-loved-trumps-bible-photo-op-outside-church-2020-6>.
　　Jockers， Matthew L. Macroanalysis： Digital Methods and Literary History. Champaign， IL： U of Illinois P， 2013.
　　Lee， Kyoo. “A Close-up： On U， The Reader InOutside.” PN Review 46.1 （2019）： 160-168.
　　---. “‘Right： to Write ’ Toward a Democalligraphic U-topia， Huang Jing Yuan.” Flash Art Feb.-March （2019）. Aug. 19， 2020 <https：//flash---art.com/article/right-to-write-________-toward-a-democalligraphic-u-topia-huang-jing-yuan/>.
　　Martin， Jonathan， Maggie Haberman and Katie Rogers. “As Public Opinion Shifts on Racism， Trump Digs In.” The New York Times June 11， 2020.
　　McLuhan， Marshall. “The Medium is the Message.” Understanding Media： The Extensions of Man. Cambridge， MA： MIT P， 1994.
　　Montague， Zach. “Holding It Aloft， He Incited a Backlash. What Does the Bible Mean to Trump？” The New York Times June 2， 2020.
　　Moran， Lee. “Trump Accused Of Exploiting Sacred Symbols By Clergy Of Church Where He Married Melania.” Huffington Post June 13， 2020. Aug. 19， 2020 <www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-church-sacred-symbols-protests_n_5ee4a4edc5b670a0b39b3e0b>. 　　Moretti， Franco. Distant Reading. Brooklyn： Verso， 2013.
　　O’Neil， Luke. “What Do We Know About Trump’s Love for The Bible？” The Guardian June 2， 2020. Aug. 19， 2020 <www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/02/what-do-we-know-about-trumps-love-for-the-bible>.
　　Perloff， Marjorie. “Microreading/Microwriting.” PN Review 46.1 （2019）： 29-31.
　　Poniewozik， James. “As Images of Pain Flood TV， ‘Where Is Our Leader？’” The New York Times June 5， 2020.
　　Rankine， Claudia. “Weather.” The New York Times June 15， 2020.
　　---. “The Condition of Black Life Is One of Mourning.” The New York Times June 22， 2015.
　　@realDonaldTrump. “THOSE THAT DENY THEIR HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT！” Twitter June 11， 2020， 10：09 a.m. Aug. 19， 2020 <twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1271082251791499267>.
　　Rogers， Katie. “Protesters Dispersed With Tear Gas So Trump Could Pose at Church.” The New York Times June 1， 2020.
　　Sue， Derald Wing. Microgressions in Everyday Life： Race， Gender， and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken： Wiley， 2010.
　　Tiffany， Kaitlyn. “Why K-pop Fans Are No Longer Posting About K-pop.” The Atlantic June 6， 2020. Aug. 19， 2020 <www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/twitter-k-pop-protest-black-lives-matter/612742/>.
　　Trump， Donald J. Trump： The Art of the Deal. New York： Ballantine Books， 2015.
　　Vincent， James. “K-pop Stans Are Flooding Right-wing Hashtags Like #BlueLivesMatter and #MAGA.” The Verge June 3， 2020. Aug. 19， 2020 <www.theverge.com/2020/6/3/21278950/k-pop-stans-social-media-flooding-hashtags-bluelivesmatter-maga>.
　　Williams， Thomas Chatterton. “We Need to Stop Measuring Black Lives by Their Whiteness.” The New York Times June 18， 2020.
　　Wittgenstein， Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. 4th ed. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe， P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. Eds. P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. Walden， MA： Blackwell， 2009.
　　Yoshino， Kenji. Covering： The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights. New York： Random House， 2006.
　　Zukofsky， Louis. “A”. New York： New Directions， 2011.
　　責任编辑：王文惠