[New-Poetry] Re: Books a poet should own

[Roger Day]

I guess I was trying to essay the point that a poet's practice defines
what books they may find neccessary to own. If I may take the liberty
of choosing two poets I take to take to be exemplars, David Bircumshaw
and Miekal And - they seem to me to be two people whose practices are
very far apart on  a messily defined grid that might cover all
examples of practice in the region that you quote. To me, if I state
what books a poet must own, I must have some idea of what or who the
poet is  and I can only choose myself as the marker in this regard so
there is a confusion between "what books are good" and "what a poet
must own": to me, in the context of the question stated, they are one
and the same. For example, if  I was being prescriptive, I could state
with absolute certainty that a poet must own the miniature version of
the OED. Instead, I aim for the worthier goal of being descriptive.

One day I'll open my mouth and I will have thought through every damn
word I utter. On second thoughts maybe that's not such a worthy goal.

Roger

On 10/24/06, Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not being entirely flippant here when I say, define me a poet.
>
> Well, I'd say that to the degree you are not being flippant, you're being
> silly or obtuse.  This is clearly a discussion group of and for
> English-speakers--primarily about North American and British poetry.  A poet
> is whatever a poet is to you.
>
> --Bob G.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>


-- 
http://www.badstep.net/
Suspicion breeds confidence