This is the ur-text of what became “Again,” published the same day and sharing nearly identical content with minor variations that reveal the poet’s revision process. The title here carries more philosophical weight: “The Fallacy of Pursuit” names the paradox explicitly—the poet is chasing an idea or ideal rather than a tangible goal, and he knows it. Where “Again” added “prewritten” to destiny, “Need the heat,” and a few additional phrases, this version is marginally leaner, with “Or just destiny” arriving as a blunter full stop. The core architecture is identical: the cascading idioms of risk (chaff in the wind, pig in a poke, fly close to the sun), the cosmic escalation to Mars and volcanic creation, the pivot to human relationship, the Russian Roulette image, the defiant “And it is glorious,” and the self-aware closing about clichés describing life “in a roundabout way.” Read as a pair, these two poems demonstrate Plahm’s compositional method—the first draft published raw, then revisited and slightly expanded, both allowed to stand as independent works. The title “The Fallacy of Pursuit” is arguably the more precise and provocative framing: it acknowledges that the pursuit may be logically flawed while insisting that the flaw is the glory. The 53 likes (versus 20 for “Again”) suggest readers responded more strongly to this version’s more direct philosophical framing.

The companion piece to “Again” and arguably the stronger version, thanks primarily to its title. “The Fallacy of Pursuit” is a sharper philosophical instrument than “Again”—it names the central paradox before the poem begins, establishing a framework that makes every subsequent idiom and risk metaphor resonate as evidence of a knowing, deliberate choice to pursue what may be unpursuable. The content is nearly identical to its sibling, and the same strengths apply: the manic accumulation of gambling language, the breathtaking pivot from cosmic scale to human intimacy, the Russian Roulette image that pairs trust with mortality, and the self-aware coda about clichés as truthful approximation. The minor differences—this version’s slightly leaner phrasing, the absence of “Need the heat”—give it a fractionally tighter feel. The 53 likes versus 20 for “Again” suggest readers preferred this framing, and the engagement is warranted: the title does meaningful philosophical work that “Again” leaves implicit. The same limitations apply as well—the prose-heavy format, the density of idioms that can fatigue, the essay-like passages. The existence of both versions in the catalog raises an interesting editorial question about whether both are necessary or whether they dilute each other’s impact. But taken on its own terms, this is an intellectually honest, energetic, and ultimately moving argument for the glory of the uncertain life—a man who knows the pursuit is a fallacy and pursues anyway, because the alternative is not living at all.