To clarify, in response to John Erhardt: the ironic citation of clichés is not an illegitimate technique. In the hand of a weaker poet, though, the clichés tend to take over, diminish rather than augment tension. Does the use of canned language lead to some weak moments even in Ashbery, Schuyler? Indubitably. In Strand, Tate, though, there is often not any poetic tension to begin with, and the clichés are not transformed or subverted quite enough to justify their use.

That is why I think of Tate as a lightweight Ashbery. It seems as though it would be easy to write like Ashbery, since we all know the clichés of our own time. Tate proves that it is not. It is sad, because I used to love his work when I was young (when he was young). The Lost Pilot, The Oblivion Ha-Ha, are superb. His writing seemed to lose energy as it absorbed that Ashbery influence.

I got the Norton Anthology of Modern Poetry when it came out in 1973. Tate was the youngest poet in there. I was 13 years old. So I actually read and liked his poetry before it started to go downhill in the mid-late 1970s. I would love to hear a defense of this poetry, by the way, by someone who thinks he is still going on strong. Debate always helps me to clarify my own ideas.

Another thing about Ashbery's clichés, is that they are usually "off." They sound weird, unfamiliar, as if the person who is using them didn't quite know their proper use. With lesser poets the same clichés are often simply "themselves."