Re: [New-Poetry] An Era of Détente for Creative-Wri ting Programs

[Chris Lott]

Well, it's rare that a bad label makes me wish for more labels rather
than none at all...

The difference, I think, is that (as far as I can tell) you get-- or
wholly believe you get, which is the same thing for this purpose--
Wilshberia/quietist/etc poetry and believe it to be largely inferior,
a retread of a poetry long since worn out.

Whereas I, for the most part, *don't* feel I get new poetry.

It has to be easier to ignore something when you have rejected it than
when you simply find it closed off to you *and* lorded over you at the
very same time.

And, while I'm mentioning that, I should have recognized you in
something I bloggety-blogged recently lamenting the lack of teachers
of new poetry, in the sense of those being willing to share specific
examples and what they think of them, how they approach them and (to
the extent possible) how the poem means to them. You are one of the
few I've found who do this.

Most are too caught up in arguing about poetics and poetry to pay
attention to poems.

c

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Bob Grumman<bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> Chris Lott wrote:
>
> Well, except the whole post-avant/quietist thing, which I shouldn't
> follow because it literally pushes me to suicidal thoughts.
>
> c
>
> That's bad, Chris--it should push you to homicidal thoughts, not suicidal
> thoughts.  I ignore it.  Except to get annoyed that "School of Quietude,"
> which is a name with no useful definition, gets all the publicity and
> discussion.  My superior terms, whether you like them or not, get almost no
> discussion, except from visual poets who don't like my requirement that
> something called a "visual poem" have words in it to qualify as a poem--and
> who (insanely) believe that by making that requirement, I'm trying to stop
> people from making artworks with text but no words.