Day (2003), a word-for-word transcription of one day's New York Times, extends Marcel Duchamp's ready-made practice into the literary realm. In the 2004 essay "Being Boring," Goldsmith writes, "You really don't need to read my books to get the idea of what they're like; you just need to know the general concept." This coy sentiment, delivered in a deadpan voice, suggests an advantage to a conceptual-poetry syllabus: You really don't need to read the books. However, while skipping the following books (and instead merely contemplating their conceits) may be in the …" /> Day (2003), a word-for-word transcription of one day's New York Times, extends Marcel Duchamp's ready-made practice into the literary realm. In the 2004 essay "Being Boring," Goldsmith writes, "You really don't need to read my books to get the idea of what they're like; you just need to know the general concept." This coy sentiment, delivered in a deadpan voice, suggests an advantage to a conceptual-poetry syllabus: You really don't need to read the books. However, while skipping the following books (and instead merely contemplating their conceits) may be in the …" /> Day (2003), a word-for-word transcription of one day's New York Times, extends Marcel Duchamp's ready-made practice into the literary realm. In the 2004 essay "Being Boring," Goldsmith writes, "You really don't need to read my books to get the idea of what they're like; you just need to know the general concept." This coy sentiment, delivered in a deadpan voice, suggests an advantage to a conceptual-poetry syllabus: You really don't need to read the books. However, while skipping the following books (and instead merely contemplating their conceits) may be in the …" />