[New-Poetry] 100 Poets You Should Know

[Jason Quackenbush]

I think maybe I'm using a less charged concept of agenda, but yeah, it 
doesn't matter.

Bob Grumman wrote:
>
>
> Jason Quackenbush wrote:
>> Any process of selection by some standard which includes some and 
>> excludes others has an agenda, and in this case i think it's revealed 
>> in the list title.
> Jason, as I said, apparently in another post, the title probably meant 
> that the list was of poets whose names we would likely know.  All 
> lists include and exclude, but it's silly to say they have agendas 
> because of that.  For me, to have an agenda means to desire to convert 
> people to some point of view.  Jim's list doesn't seem at all intended 
> to do that.  What about a list of the one hundred cities in American 
> with the highest populations--what's its agenda?
> But, like you, I don't care whether the list has an agenda or not.
> --Bob
>> These are poets you should know. Should being a normative, imperative 
>> statement used in isolation from any reasons other than the body of 
>> the list, we have to assume that it is the list itself which is 
>> justifying the deontodynamic nature that is being claimed by its 
>> title. So we know that these poets are alive, they are "american" and 
>> they are visible and are chosen for their visibility. So that's 
>> valuing the criteria of visibility, and it follows from that that 
>> it's agenda is to implicitly advance whatever it is that the folks on 
>> this list have in common by means of which they have become more 
>> visible than the folks off the list.
>>
>> Any list like this has an agenda, like I said, and I don't really 
>> have trouble with that. It's that the agenda is implicit rather than 
>> explicit that i don't like. but then I like Jim Finnegan fine and i 
>> truly believe he's someone who cares deeply for the art of poetry and 
>> does what he does to try to be a benefit for that, so I'm not 
>> particularly sweating it.
>>
>> Bob Grumman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason Quackenbush wrote:
>>>> I prefer agendas that are clear and out in the open. It's the 
>>>> agendas of things like the original list which go largely unnoticed 
>>>> that i find unsettling.
>>> But, Jason, the original list neutrally recorded the names of the 
>>> 100 most visible American Poets (in James's view).  I don't smell an 
>>> agenda.  Each reader of the list is free to make of it what he 
>>> will--I as strong evidence of the importance of conformity for 
>>> visibility, others as strong evidence that there are only three 
>>> kinds of valuable poetry, Iowa Plaintext, Formal and Language.  So 
>>> what?
>>>
>>> --Bob G.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> New-Poetry mailing list
>>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-Poetry mailing list
>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry