2026.04.19 Everybody Loves a Poetry Critic (volume 1: January 8, 2008

2026.04.19 Everybody Loves a Poetry Critic (volume 1: January 8, 2008 - December 8, 2012)

IntroFace

- tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE (written March 12. 2026E.V.)

I'm acquainted w/ a Pittsburgh poet named Peter. At an event he came over to me & asked me if I read poetry. I told him YES & that I review it too. I think he was a little taken aback, that it wasn't the answer he expected. He sd: 'Even poets don't read poetry.' I think he might be right for the most part.

I'm former friends w/ another Pittsburgh poet named DP. He told me that the British writer Rudyard Kipling sd something to the effect that good poetry is poetry that rhymes & can be recited from memory. I don't agree w/ that. I think that narrows down the formal field to boorishness.

I have a website called "Top 100 Poets". There are currently only 25 poets listed on it:

001. Bennett, John M.

002. Cage, John

003. Coolidge, Clark

004. Cummings, EE

005. Dewdney, Christopher

006. Ferlinghetti, Lawrence

007. Kriwet, Ferdinand

008. levy, d.a.

009. Loy, Mina

010. Mac Low, Jackson

011. Malley, Ern

012. Mason, Chris

013. Mayer, Bernadette

014. McCaffery, Steve

015. Patchen, Kenneth

016. Ruby, Michael Handler

017. Sanders, Ed

018. Silliman, Ron

019. Stater, Bruce

020. Tardos, Anne

021. Tolson, Melvin B.

022. Villon, François

023. Weiner, Hannah

024. Williams, Emmett

025. Zukofsky, Louis

Why so few? There aren't really many poets that I like. If one were to contrast that to how many writers, composers, & filmmakers I like the contrast wd be extreme. Perhaps I expect more from poets, perhaps I just find most poetry to be intrinsically vague & prone to low standards pretending to be high ones. Perhaps I'm just not appreciative enuf of poetry in general. Perhaps it 'just doesn't do it for me'.

Here's my introduction to that webpage:

As with all the "Top 100" lists I've compiled or am compiling, this is just my personal favorites, it's not intended as an 'absolutely objective' list of poets who're 'unquestionably GREAT'. Obviously, I'm not familiar with all the work of all poets & what I like &/or love is based on personal criteria as well as during what period of my life I was exposed to the work that will differ from the criteria & exposure period of other people interested in the subject. Probably what's most important to me is how innovative & original they seem to be to me. I seek out the work that I find most stimulating.

I don't usually include friends of mine on these lists. That way I can avoid all sorts of ego problems. However, I do make the occasional exception - in this case by including Chris Mason & Jackson Mac Low (who I didn't know that well but who I still considered a friend). I don't include myself, even though I consider myself to be a great writer, b/c I reject the context of "poetry".

[Ok, ok, strictly speaking I write "Butt Poems" & "Instagram Poetry" - but those are special cases.]

For far too many of these poets I've only had the chance to learn about their work in extraordinary anthologies. Ferdinand Kriwet in the Emmett William's edited section of "Open Poetry", e.g.. As such, I'm hardly an expert on Kriwet's poetry & have been mainly reminded of its existence by revisiting the anthology. In fact, I cd probably include everyone whose work appears in anything Williams curates, it's all so remarkable. For the moment, at least, I'm trying to be a bit more particular - but I'm not sure it's really working.

In fact, there're so many extraordinary anthologies w/ amazing work in them that just about everyone in them deserves some sort of recognition here. Here's a list of some of those publications:

"Once Again" edited by Jean-François Bory

"Text-Sound Texts" edited by Richard Kostelanetz

"Anthology of Concrete Poetry" edited by Emmett Williams

"Concrete Poetry - A World View" edited by Mary Ellen Solt

&. yeah, I know that Ern Malley was a hoax, a fictitious poet created by 2 Australian poets who hated Modernist poetry - but I think their parodies of Modernism are far more interesting than their own poetry.

- January 28, 2021 note from tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE

All of the preceding are meant to add up to some formal &/or philosophical point that will help to contextualize my reviews. I didn't start reviewing bks until Xmas of 2007. Not long after, in the beginning of 2008, I was mostly bedridden w/ pneumonia. I had very little energy but I'm a work-a-holic of sorts (more of a creative-a-holic) so I'd go to my personal library across the hall from where my bed is & systematically pick 8 or so bks & take them back to my bed. Next to the bed is a card-table w/ a laptop & w/ a chair at about the same height as the bed. I'd feebly swing myself over to the chair & start 'reviewing' the bks. My main purpose at the time was to just create a list of bks that I've read w/ some minimal written commentary. The 1st 'review' here, of Ed Sanders's 1968 exemplifies this minimalism. These 'reviews' were mostly pretty useless, I've since moved on to writing ones w/ considerably more substance.

The title, Everybody Loves A Poetry Critic, is, of course, facetious. Critics are usually only well-loved if they're praising someone's work or being negative about someone who's unpopular. Imagine if Rump, the Idiot King, were to write a bk of poetry. WELLLLLLL, if someone were to write criticism of it saying that Rump's a genius we know of at least ONE reader of the review who'd love the critic, eh? However, if the critic were to say that the poetry's trash inflicted upon us by a maniac the review might be popular w/ hundreds of millions of people currently suffering thru Rump's presidency. In general, tho, I don't think critics are well-loved. Nonetheless, we feel moved to foist our (usually) learn-ed opinions out there. Here I am, people, a guy who reads poetry & I'm going to tell you what I think about what I read whether you like it or not. Of course, I choose to read poetry that I think has something significant to offer - so my purpose here is to PROMOTE certain poets. I can't claim that I'm also promoting my own scholarly genius b/c, alas, there's not much of it on display. There are people who're truly devoted to poetry, like George Quasha & Ron Silliman. I don't have much in common w/ them. Nonetheless, I'm not afraid to call it like I see it & there is some value to that.

In fact, one of the things that I've noticed about poetry reviews on Goodreads is that 'reviewers' often give 5 star ratings that they then have nothing to say about. This strikes me as a purely 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' process motivated by a fear of getting a bad rating or review from someone else. My impression is often that the 'reviewer' hasn't actually read the poetry bk ostensibly under scrutiny. I try to be an exception to this apparent general practice by at least 1. reading the bk from cover-to-cover, & 2. actually saying something that I mean. As such, my 'reviews', even the shallow ones written in my early days of reviewing when I was mainly trying to just list bks I've read, end up having more substance than the other Goodreads poetry reviews that dare not speak their mind lest they become unpopular.

Thank the Holy Ceiling Light, at least one writer, a friend of Alan Davies' named Nick Piombino, called attn on his blogspot to my reviewing in a favorable way:

"One of the features of Goodreads which you can receive if you choose to (you can also suspend it if you want) is to receive recent book reviews from your friends. I am not ashamed to admit, that while I do tend to read books, even for years, by types, I like to read almost any kind of book review, the same way I will read anything in front of me at the breakfast table, including whatever is on the cereal box, particularly if it happens to appear in front of me and there is nothing else to read. I don't always read the reviews that now pour in daily in my email inbox from Goodreads, but I have been reading every single one, by somebody who has named themselves, interestingly, tENT[AT]IVELY, a[ ]cONVENIENCE. 'ved, and was struck by the sensitivity and generosity of a group of reviews he did about books by Alan Davies. He claims he is going through his library alphabetically, and reviewing books that catch his eye. Today, for example, he reviewed "In Celebration of Ourselves" by Seymour Rosen and said:

""Ah! The front cover gives a pretty good explanation: "All of us have to reveal our inner selves once in a while - Sometimes that just might mean smiling at a stranger for no reason - or whistling - A rarer breed likes to dress up as cabbage leaves or sunflowers - or wear Hawaiian leis or diapers[..]""

tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE

idioideo at gmail dot com

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Anti-Neoism page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Audiography page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Bibliography page

to my "Blaster" Al Ackerman index

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Books page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE BYOC page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Censored or Rejected page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Collaborations page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE (d) compositions page

to Amir-ul Kafirs' Facebook page