Peter Davidson pans Edward Hirsch in the New York Times Book Review, for slackness of language and earnest prosiness. Which begs the question: isn't this the problem of a certain sector of "mainstream" poetry generally? If so, why doesn't the New York Times pay attention to other sorts of poetry that does not suffer from this malaise? Why pretend that this is the only poetry that exists?

***

I'm reading a book by Ann Lauterbach, "Clamor." It is quite good, obviously. I am struck by the Ashberian "poetic diction," however. A certain uniformity of tone. Very elevated, genteel if not quietidinous. Maybe it's Ashbery purified of colloquialism. Am I exaggerating the influence of Ashbery here? Am I deaf to the tones that are distinctly hers? It would take a very discerning reader to be able to distinguish this style from his on a "blindfold" test. Is there anything wrong with imitating the style of a contemporary master? Honestly we would have to say that most poetry is written in some sort of period style, that few poets actually find their own way, and that this fine discernment is precisely what is called for. But the blurb from Ashbery on the back could just as easily be a description of his OWN poetry: "Ann Lauterbach's landscapes and people come to us as strangely as they do in real life. . . " I'd say she shares about 90% of Ashbery's poetic DNA.

Do I want to read poems written in this style by someone other than him? I keep getting bothered by this as I try to read. Maybe because Ashbery himself writes so much, he doesn't leave a lot of room for his imitators. I can quench my thirst easily enough in the originals. Maybe the sense that Blanchot has when he affirms that imitations kill the original. God knows I am a highly derivative poet myself, to the extent that I am a poet at all.