Preface - Electronic Poetry Center

From: Alfred Corn
Subject: Criteria
I know that individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of all
subscribers or represent a fair sampling of the thinking of LANGUAGE poets
in general. So I’m going to continue on with an open mind and assume that
answers to the questions I asked could be better put than some of those posted
these past few days. Keith Tuma made sense; he thought about what he was
writing before just lashing out. There are no doubt others who can do this,
which I’ll continue believing until evidence proves otherwise.
To begin with, one small point: I didn’t say posts were designed to change
people’s minds but instead their thinking. Why be a LANGUAGE, or any sort
of poet if you’re not sensitive to language? And if you have no interest in
changing someone’s thinking, why not just send the post to yourself and enjoy
the sound of your own voice?
On the possibility or impossibility of evaluating poetry: The idea that all poems
are of equal interest, that no poem is either good or bad, can be believed by
some people, obviously, but not by most readers. Check your own experience:
when you sit down with a new magazine of poetry, do you really begin at the
beginning and in perfect calm read each poem with equal interest, enjoying,
learning and feeling in equal measure on every page, regardless of what
happens there? If you do, you will be an Editor’s Delight, the ideal subscriber,
who will never dislike any of the offerings. Is this actually how you read? Or
do you not abandon some poems in entire boredom, go on to others, reread
some with pleasure and fascination, dismiss others with a chuckle, etc.? Be
honest.
By the same token, if evaluation is as contingent as some of the posts say it is,
how is LP able to dismiss "mainstream" poetry as dull or retrograde or clunky
or whatever? Isn’t that an evaluation? If it is, on what basis is the dismissal
made? What are your standards? When David Kellogg cites all the usual
criteria that have been applied to the evaluation of poetry since Day One, I have
to ask him why he doesn’t read the "mainstream" poetry that has those qualities
in abundance. Obviously there are other restrictions he is bringing to his
evaluation that he doesn’t mention–like (I’m just guessing) "communication
forms drawn from ordinary conversational practice or logical discourse are
excluded," or something like that. Whatever they are, these extra criteria, the