Okay, let's get started. It seems we will have to make due with seperate threads for each poet. I think it will work fine. I will label the threads as follows:
Poetry in Person: Poet's name

This way anyone wanting to read along and participate will know that a particular thread goes with the group. Does this make sense?

Also, you can read the book online at Google books.
http://books.google.com/books?id=i1oujg ... &q&f=false

I will leave this thread up and we can use it as a place to discuss general issues related to the book or cross over ideas from one poet to the next.

I am disappointed to report that the book is not complete on Google books.

I no has this book.

To start things off, I feel I must disclose my lack of credentials so that my opinions will not be given undue weight. I have no training, formal or otherwise, in reading/appreciating poetry. I am simply a reader who often misses the subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, nuances. I have read very little 20th century American poetry after Frost.

I am glad to have this opportunity to read about late 20th century American poets. I hope that reading about them and discussing them here will help me understand and appreciate them.

Pearl London’s course must have been awesome. She obviously prepared well and invited important poets to her seminars. My comments throughout this discussion assume that Alexander Neuberger’s edited transcripts accurately convey the individual poet’s styles and opinions. Since I have almost no other exposure to these poets, it is my only option. I find the poet’s comments come in three categories: obtuse, obscure, and obvious; if you will pardon my lame attempt at assonance. By obtuse I mean some poet’s perchance to answer questions with the answer to different questions. Like, “what do you think of Shakespeare? – The Sheppard’s pie was nice but the beer was too warm.” No, that did not really happen in the book, it is just an example. Obtuse comments were not helpful. When I say obscure I mean a poet being a poet and not adding clarity. I understand that some poems are not meant to be clear and the very vagueness is part of their appeal. But, these seminars are about poets and their works. They are not meant to be poems themselves. Obscure comments are not helpful. Obvious is not meant to be pejorative – quite the opposite. Poets like June Jordan want to be understood. They have important things to say, in general and about their poetry. These comments are helpful.

I will add my observations/questions under each chapter heading. Thank you all for your patience with this novice.

I stumbled over the following poem by Jane (not June) Jordan, sometimes called the Grandmother of Canadian poetry. She is not included in the book but she expresses what I am trying to say.

Notes for the Dreamspeaker

I do not serve you platitudes
I need to speak & live
function & rebel
in my own language

I want to drop a line
watch the current flow
before I reel concepts
document my particular vision

bafflegab will never substitute

I take my stubborn route
with clarity
a hardhat just in case
a cliff should fall on me

I watch the sky lengthening its mystic & surreal
dreamspeaker nets
focus ten years ahead

NOW IT IS YOUR TURN

Don’t you just love it—“bafflegab” what a great word.

GaryG48 wrote:To start things off, I feel I must disclose my lack of credentials so that my opinions will not be given undue weight. I have no training, formal or otherwise, in reading/appreciating poetry. I am simply a reader who often misses the subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, nuances. I have read very little 20th century American poetry after Frost.

No need for any disclaimers. I believe we are all hacks here. The important thing is interest. I'm happy to have you reading along!