now, I know I need to review some more prize books
also, I LOST a Peter Shippy book I not only was going to reviewlet here, but also SOLD on Amazon
and I have two REAL reviews which are very overdue
In any case, while making dinner, I have been thinking a bit on "poets' poetry" and "poets' poets"
Among early examples I heard classified this way were Bishop and Ashbery and then Laura Jensen, etc. As opposed to Bukowski, the Beats, the Confessionals, the second generation Confessionals, the Feminists, and the "older" group of African-Americans (Amiri Baraka, Sonia Sanchez, Lucille Clifton, Gwendolyn Brooks), of non canonical "necessary -- if for learning -- poets
although some of my teachers would firmly place James and Charles Wright here (if not CD)
anyway, p.p. which those in the know, know, and those fantasy non poets who read pretty widely, know -- not popular poetry, not populist poetry, but poets it takes a fellow practitioner to say -- hey -- wow -- look at this.
well, this gets back to what do poets read? what do good poets read? how to good poets read? and what about things like pobiz and academia and all that?
HOW TO BE A POETS' POET
go to a good school with a lot of other people who will become poets, and wow'em in the workshop
come out with an early book that's brilliantly published, and then remain silent for 20 years (women are particularly good at this) and / or -- write slowly/publish little
be a fabulous explicator of poetry and poems, and explain your own few works better than others do
you are invested in the fine letterpress tradition -- Everson is the exception that proves the rule (might be considered a pp except that he doesn't write in the pp way)
another exception, different way: Jeffers -- how would his legacy be different w/o the carmel estate, encrouching seagull houses?
so first, to be a poets' poet, be mostly only known to poets
probably style more than subject matter, but I would also think -- no popular subject matter handled in a plain style on a major press