I've got to think no one can write a "Jonathan Mayhew" poem better than I can. Yet this is far from a foregone conclusion. You'd like to think that this would be true of everyone by definition, but it is clearly not. Amateur poetry is distinguished precisely by its lack of distinguishing characteristics, and the less that someone knows about poetry the more likely he or she is to write in an extremely narrow range, to not really "express" the self in any significant sense.

I consider myself "semi-pro."

***

Why does everyone think that Silliman is so narrow-minded? (Well not everyone of course). He is disappointed that the younger poets don't form literary formations in a repetition of Language poetry (which is not going to happen), but I actually think he does listen and is very thoughtful, whether you agree with him or not. All my exchanges with him back-channel have been cordial. Could it be a question of "tone"? Not what he says but the way he says it? I am not irritated by this as much as others are, apparently.

***

David Shapiro's sense that the victors have written literary history in a way that leaves certain poets out of the picture (including himself). This HAS happened, I would say, but I don't think the final chapter has been written. I don't think, for example, that Language poetry has won out against 2nd generation New York poetry. The people 10 years younger than myself are likely to pick and choose from among a wide variety of poets. (I am in my early 40s--very early 40s). They aren't all going to be reading only Bernstein and Watten. Of course, the academic critics will always be at least 15 years behind in any scenario.