In fact, “over-clarifications” results in defamiliarization or “Making Strange”, so this artistic device increases difficulty, hinders comprehension, and impedes readings. For what reason, this makes a difference, a difference between the poetic speech and the ordinary speech. This is exactly what Goldsmith does in his texts. He estranges the texts and the forms through the excessive clarification and providing the minute details. This technique defamiliarizes the content, framing his speech to distinguish the poetic of his language from the practical one.
Goldsmith presents unusual kind of writing; for instance, what is unusual in Soliloquy is that what comes to a reader’s mind out of the title meaning exists actually in the content and the way he presents it. When someone conducts or performs a soliloquy alone with himself, he does not consider thoroughly the format of his language nor mincing his words because he is talking alone to no audience; he speaks about what he sees and what comes to his mind in a disorganized way because the flow of ideas is usually disorganized when contemplation.
So this is exactly what Goldsmith does when he employs such a language in his writing because soliloquy presupposes the idea that there are no listeners even though Goldsmith is aware that his work is written to be read. Traffic has the same style as well. His works record every movement that may accompany the text when writing it; he is alert to all minute details when writing the texts. Therefore, these two texts seem as if they do not make sense, but the reality, of course, is the opposite. The in-depth studier of postmodernism comes up with connections and sense from any nonsense. It is true that the texts challenge the reader; however, such kind of challenge opens horizons for multiple explanations and discussions.
I agree with you that Goldsmith has no audience but do you think that his text is an example of improvisation since no preparation in advance is needed? On the other hand, any author sees his audience in front him. And he does not know who is going to read his text. I think instead of the audience, the intention of the author defines the form of the text. Like every single author, Goldsmith knew that there will be some people who is reading it. But I am not sure if Goldsmith talked to a recorder and then transcribed it or walked around with a paper and pencil whole day. If he talked to a recorder, then, I would definitely suggest that it might be a performance like David Antin’s.
As for improvisation, in my opinion I feel that it may be hard for Goldsmith to improvise a text like “Soliloquy” that consists of 487 pages although it seems as a long talk that does not need preparations in advance. Basically, such a text needs preparation and organization of the acts and even before production, while “Traffic” could be so even though it is still a little bit long for improvisation. I agree with you that he knew that there would be people who read it as we do now. And you are right; I feel these text seem similar to Anttin’s. We are exposed again to a similar style and mechanisms.
I agree with what you have said about the word “soliloquy” The only thing that i can add is that this word, as we see in plays and films, might suggest that the performer is also directing his words to the audience. So, i think that Goldsmith wants to engage the readers to his piece.
Soliloquy seems to me both an accurate and an ironic title at once. Is there an audience? In a sense, the first audience is the absent interlocuter (the person or people with whom KG is talking). Of course, a literary soliloquy is usually heightened, even virtuostic language.