With anti-story there is self-estranging complexity. The autopilot flow of narrative is troubled. Instead of stories being for some point of plot, what fits expectations, one veers from probable to what is possible. Instead of a closed narrative box where the writer elaborates on what it, the poet opens to suggests options of what could be, a potential which is never exhausted by being tidily resolved. This is the strength of anti-story.
Citing an example from his own haiku,
calling the bear
that might not be there
How does it end? The scenario is weakened if one were to find out. It isn’t necessary to find out what next, or how does it end. You keep the quest in the question. If one gives priority to the answer, it is not as similar to life where the reality is not ultimate outcome but the process.
Anti-story is for those who can confront truth with all its jaggedness.