The ironically cited cliché is itself a cliché. Ashbery still gets away with it, because he practically invented the technique and avoids falling completely into that suburban ennui tone (usually). He also uses an erudite register along with the clichés: they are just one element of his poetic language, not the predominant one. He really has an incredible range.

You can read old reviews of Frank O'Hara books, of the books he published while alive. U of Michigan P put out a book of critical essays that includes most of these reviews. The reviewers are generally obtuse, clueless. They can't hear that tone, or they devote a perfunctory paragraph to him in one of those notorious omnibus reviews. For me, O'Hara is THE poet of his age, also with an incredible range of registers.

Is reviewing better nowadays? I'm sure it is, if you take Rain Taxi into account, and some of the internet sites. I picked up my copy of Rain Taxi while buying "In Memory of My Theories." I wish the reviewer of Jordan's book had put some more time (and space) into it. It is not really an uneven collection, in terms of quality; it is only uneven in the sense of being variegated.

***

Will they cancel class tomorrow if Kansas wins national championship tonight? If so, I could have stayed at home until Wed. I told the secretaries in the office: "It's only a basketball game" and they almost took my head off. I've listened to enough a.m. sports radio in the car that I almost care.