Be Kind to Your Friends in the Swamp

Thank you Jonathan. I’m not sure if you answered my question, but your response is helpful. And I share with you the trepidation of criticizing your kind. I fear for my currency.

First, let me clear this misunderstanding. In no way do I have an “assumption that there is some lower standard of writing for avant-garde” And I apologize to any out there who read my post that way. I’m not always the most transparent window in the house.

No, I assume there is a standard, but one I do not understand. Higher? Well, I guess that may be arguable, but I’m not up for that argument tonight.

But let’s get to the meat of Jonathan’s criticism, although completely agreeing with his preface (“I would object to the notion that there is a generic "postmodern poem." Doesn't each poet have to justify his or her own style?”):

I could point to the ways in which Greg's poem fails to employ any strategy with any consistency. Yes, there can be a consistent purposiveness even in disjunction! The "bad writing" (i.e. the phrase "nicely and earnestly") does not seem redeemed by any higher purpose. The first line sounds utterly sophomoric.

That first adolescent line indulged itself because of music I was hearing from above, that is, upstairs. And the rest just flowed from there, utilizing association or phonic play (even that awful “earnestly and nicely / in lawns”). So I’d argue that the poem does employ a strategy. And consistently. I’m just not arguing that it’s good.