I’m trying to follow the arguments here, and I find it difficult. Someone made a joke about how Billy Collins’ poetry being simple enough for Bush to read was what led to his being appointed, someone extended that to Rumsfeld, someone rejoindered with Clinton references, someone implied that Bush and not the librarian of the Library of Congress appointed Collins (or at least influenced him or her), and the thread appears to be spiraling away from the original topic faster than…[insert your favorite speed metaphor here]. The restaurant analogy, while apt, also can lead to diversion. Since this seems to be a thread about poetry, it would be nice to not degenerate into political tit for tat.

I’m not sure I understand the original premise, except that it appears to be that poetry should be both accessible and well crafted. I suppose corollary arguments could be that inaccessible poetry is not necessarily well-crafted, and accessible poetry is not necessarily poorly-crafted. If this is what the original poster was trying to say, and perhaps did not say in the most well-crafted and accessible prose, I don’t think anyone can argue against it. If this is not what he meant to say, perhaps some clarification is in order.

I sense in this, however, something that I’ve been thinking about for quite a while concerning how poetry develops within a relatively closed poetry community, be it on line or in real life. I hope the thoughts that follow don’t serve to further pull the thread astray. Dick Morgan’s comments about the “mummification process” leads me to believe he is somewhat saying that, in the small or closed poetry community, as the poets work, discuss, revise, comment, and finalize, everyone’s poems will with time move toward a common product. This is probably not done consciously, but will happen as the same type comments are made by the same reviewers from poem to poem to poem. The poets may hold those reviewers in high esteem, consider their comments as valid, and move their poems more toward the common product over time. It begins with revisions to poems, and moves to first drafts of later poems. Thus, for any small poetry community where there is critique and revision, a sort of “house poem” arises. With time, they all seem the same. I suspect this would be equally true of a creative writing program when the professor is a dominant personality and is not careful enough to recognize and avoid the problem.

Actually, I have not noticed that happening at Eratosphere so much as I have at a couple of other sites I participate in or monitor. At one site, where the moderators and key expert critters are very strong on-line personalities, it is a real problem. All poems that are by consensus of the experts considered good, to my ear, tend to sound the same. I am also new enough to poetry to realize the problem with that site may be one of my perception rather than poetry practice. At the ‘Sphere, I think there are enough good critters (well, and poets), and there are not just a few dominant personalities, that I haven’t seen the “house poem” develop.

Now, Dick, if I’ve put words in your mouth, or if I’ve interpreted your mummification comment incorrectly, please let me know.

Or, if I’m all wet about this being a problem of the small poetry community in general, I’m sure the ‘Spherians will let me know.

Best Regards,
DAT