Ariana Reines once called the sentences of Michel Houellebecq 'sarcophagi.' No one ever wrote sentences more sarcophagic than Chelsey Minnis. In its original mention the description had less to do with the content than the structure—the confining structure—of his sentences. In Minnis's case, whether neurotically or stylistically, she establishes a small, blank set of grammatic structures and iterates them with variable content throughout the book. It is an algebra, and while the variables vary, the formulae are generally inter-referential, if they vary at all.
Yes, the majority of the book is staffed with content designed to escape the straight-jacket of these hyperspecified sentential grammars, but they never escape the prison-house itself. What happens in the book by this mechanism is immense. It ties itself, by sheer insistence, to some imagined inevitability or rudiment of the world. Even at its most flippant the language does this. I'm given to think that the prison of her language is a very specialized neurotic's ward—I'm given to think that her neuroses are in fact her style, rather than the reverse. Though I'm sure I must live there, I can't imagine a world in which someone could engineer a pure unnecessary aesthetic of the gut-unctuousness found here. And the only way I can imagine a user of language to have anchored herself to some kind of underlying motion of the world—that is, to have made the structure of her language itself somehow metaphoric of some outlying biological or ontological structure, is to have been forced into a horrible corner by that structure, and to have developed her language in direct, emergency, battle with that structure, so that the language, the shield and weapon against it, becomes, adapts, is fashioned toward the very contours, toward the overcoming of the contours, of that structure, and so is therefore metaphoric of it, is a reflection, or inversion, even a sub-structure of it.
Robinson Jeffers wrote,
“What but the wolf's tooth whittled so fine
The fleet limbs of the antelope?"
What he missed, and what I argue is happening here, is that the wolf's tooth itself is whittled, in exact degree, by the antelope's limbs, such that they become intermorphic— specifically, mutually, and salutarily shaped and shaping—as all teeth to all food.
This, of course, says nothing of what the book is actually about. Most of it is bad. Amazingly.
The book is a scar against the wound of craft. A pathetic and puerile scar. If she manages to heist her wounded carcass out of the hole of her certifications, she will be, I have no doubt, one of the great ones. Craft is nothing. The book is words spoken by an actual person. The book is made of people, was written under necessity, Rilke's 'must', which is all I've ever asked of one.