"Generic voices, formulaic poetry, and poems which adhere too narrowly to a single school are unlikely to appeal to the editors."

Unless, of course, it is the School of Q. The school which is not a "school," but simply the normal way of doing things. They are all very nice professional-sounding poems, but with a certain "sameness" to them. Indeed, it all sounds extremely "narrow," "generic," and "formulaic" to my ears. One cannot object to any of the poems, but simply to the (implied) claim that together they represent a broad spectrum of poetic styles and voices. The exclusion of "schools" is the classic ideological move, as one realizes once one starts thinking of what these other schools might be. There can be no allegiances, no affiliations--except to the mainstream, the normalized practice--whether "formal" or "free." I'm even sorry to have to repeat this same tired argument. Maybe someone will find it here for the first time.