The reviewer of Charles Simic's poems in the New York Times Book Review this morning says that Simic's style is unique, all his own, and that this fact is not even debatable. I was taken aback: whether you like his work of not, his short free verse poems in rather "flat" language (the reviewer's own adjective), that recount quasi-surrealist or absurdist anecdotes, are pretty commonplace, not dissimilar to Mark Strand, James Tate, and a host of other prize-winning poets of last 30 years. Simic almost defines the "period style" I have been writing about. What am I missing here?

I remember being surprised when I learned he was not American born; you'd think a European would bring something more to the table. Why does he writes in those American suburban clichés? One the reviewer quoted today about "the note my mother wrote me to get me out of school." I'm not saying his work has no value; he's probably in the top ten who write in this mode. I'm just surprised that it would be seen as hugely original.