Preface - Electronic Poetry Center

pushing Olson for example about ten poets down the line and representing him
with a single poem – well, that’s disgusting. There are I’m sure lots of specific
examples of exclusion from the movement’s early days that others on this list
could tell you about.
However, it seems to me that the anger from LPs about mainstream poetry has
toned down in recent years, and why? Partly because exclusionary tactics like
McClatchy’s are more recognizable for the strongarming they are, and partly
because some wrongs are being righted (the new Norton postmodern etc.). The
breakup that Ron mentioned I think is partly due to the fact that individual
language poets are getting recognized, and that group identification is less
attractive to leaders who are recognizable individually. (I’m not necessarily
speaking of you, Ron; I’m thinking sociologically now.) Certainly Ron has
advocated precisely the kind of more pluralistic reading that you seem to think
language poetry excludes (see his "Canons and Institutions").
From my point of view it’s you, and not me, who describes any liking of
language poetry in exclusionary terms, like the way you assume that I don’t
read what you call "mainstream" poetry – a pretty galling and arrogant
assumption, not to mention 100% wrong. I don’t need to exclude anybody to
desribe my tastes. For example, my favorite poets among the language group
are Ron Silliman, Lyn Hejinian, and Leslie Scalapino (tho she’s maybe not
defined as "in" the group by everybody). These poets make use of prose, which
I find interesting, and they’ve opened for me ways of thinking about the poetic
process (or better, procedure?) that are pretty fresh for me. With Ron there’s a
sense of immediacy in the project at hand, something to be done, and a
willingness not to exclude the seemingly anomalous or "ugly" material. So
some stuff gets left seemingly hanging, but not "wasted," – or "waste" is
reconceived in the process of the poem. My response to Hejinian is I guess
pretty typical – My Life was a pivotal book for me, the work that made me
think, hey, there’s something going on here – and its virtues are more apparent
each time I read it. Since everything I say about her has been said better
somewhere else, I’ll refrain. With Scalapino for me it’s again a question of
process, repetition, and – in her case especially – perspective. How a subject
gets talked around, through, wrung out. Her work is exhausting, and saying
"it’s not for everybody" does not degrade its value for me and for many others.
My reasons for reading each of these poets is often different from my reasons
for liking them, and may include political or research interests: these can be
transpersonal, and I may find the work satisfying in these respects and worth
promoting to others. I may even critique other poets as not meeting such needs