an interesting series of essays

uh, it's a critique of contemporary poetry, that, while it shares some generalized gripes about mfa-land, goes into somewhat greater detail about problems/questions about contemporary poetry. no one gets off lightly in this one, which is part of it's charm. the exemplars of good writing, are, as far as i can tell roethke and dorianne laux. it's kind of mysterious, especially when she says what constitutes good poems. i'm generally pleased to read critiques of 'avant' writing, cause that particular world has the funny situation of being more full of shit AND good writing at the same time. anyway, this is the part that really gets up my butt:

Whatever else can be said of them, the first-person-anecdotal-narrative-confessional (aka "mainstream") poems that have been outnumbered in this volume by such writings as the above, can at least be critically sorted (some are clearly better than others, regardless of whether or not they fit a particular editor or critic's "taste"). Basic standards relating to the craft of writing in general, such as non-cliched phrases, use of momentum and pacing, lack of unintentional ambiguities and other grammatical problems, as well as evidence of an organizing intelligence, a sense of inevitability, a convincing and/or compelling style and voice and so forth are at least available to the reader in, for lack of a better word, the "mainstream" poem.

i'm ok with most of it except for:

"lack of unintentional ambiguities and other grammatical problems"

and "...compelling style and voice"

cause, i do think lots of avant-ness is impervious to criticism. tho, i think that it just might be bad writing, a possibility that the writer never acknowledges.

as for "unintentional ambiguities," she sounds like an elocution teacher, and an imperalist elizabethan, and must hate german poetry. which is cool, but real narrow. she kind of denies that grammar has any part in making a multilayered poem. sheesh, i'm not a radical, but that's just plum crazy. how does one determine the intention of ambiguities? i kind of like not-knowing. (which reminds me, metaphor is not about familiarity, as the artist roni horn would have it.)

and the whole compelling style and voice. i was talking to theis about "voice" the other day, and she cleared it up for me some, but i still think it's vague. and, you know, stylelessness is just bad poetry, just as it is bad shoe designers. like steve madden.

i mean, it's not not-being coopted to think rools sukk.

anyway, shouldn't i be with family celebrating baby fart face?