Reading this volume of Joris/Rothenberg's excellent anthology of experimental poetic movements was a much different experience from reading the first volume, which covered the first half of the century. With the first volume I was thrilled to read so many influential poets and very conscious of how many of them affected the poets who came immediately after. With this volume, I wasn't as taken with as many poets and I found myself at a loss to interpret/feel/make significant-meaning-of many of the poems throughout. Perhaps this has to do with the inability of the editors to "act as distant and objective viewers but as witnesses and even partisans for the works at hand" (the introduction). Certainly there is a lack of distance for many of these works (how, for example, do we process Will Alexander's place in our century's poetic continuum). Joris and Rothenberg were also not shy about including their own work, several times, in several places. It is true, Rothenberg in particular does have a very justified place in this volume, but still, we started with Charles Olson, ending with Rothenberg's Prologomena to a Poetics felt underwhelming. Just my opinion, but Robert Duncan in the finale would have felt more appropriate.

As in the first volume, the commentary was insightful and very necessary. Often, I found the commentary a lot more interesting than the poems themselves. Often. Though I think this has more to do with the state of poetry in the later half of the century than the choices in this anthology. Nothing is as certain as it seemed to be in the early days of writing. Directions, even anti-directions are diffused, intellectual ideas are murky. This is the world we live in and it is impossible to write poetry the way we did in the past.

Still no answer to the greatest mystery running through both volumes, however. I'll have to read volume 3 to see if they enlighten the reader, or else live my life never understanding why on earth they have a problem with the word "and" and insist on using the ampersand in its place. Is this a political thing I missed out on? Are we reclaiming the ampersand much like Prince ("The Artist") thwarted words when renaming himself with a symbol? What's the deal here?

These are hefty volumes of poetry & I definitely recommend them, but not out of order. I think it's important to read volume one before volume two in order to better understand the trajectory of Rothenberg/Joris' project. ( )

Reading this volume of Joris/Rothenberg's excellent anthology of experimental poetic movements was a much different experience from reading the first volume, which covered the first half of the century. With the first volume I was thrilled to read so many influential poets and very conscious of how many of them affected the poets who came immediately after. With this volume, I wasn't as taken with as many poets and I found myself at a loss to interpret/feel/make significant-meaning-of many of the poems throughout. Perhaps this has to do with the inability of the editors to "act as distant and objective viewers but as witnesses and even partisans for the works at hand" (the introduction). Certainly there is a lack of distance for many of these works (how, for example, do we process Will Alexander's place in our century's poetic continuum). Joris and Rothenberg were also not shy about including their own work, several times, in several places. It is true, Rothenberg in particular does have a very justified place in this volume, but still, we started with Charles Olson, ending with Rothenberg's Prologomena to a Poetics felt underwhelming. Just my opinion, but Robert Duncan in the finale would have felt more appropriate.

As in the first volume, the commentary was insightful and very necessary. Often, I found the commentary a lot more interesting than the poems themselves. Often. Though I think this has more to do with the state of poetry in the later half of the century than the choices in this anthology. Nothing is as certain as it seemed to be in the early days of writing. Directions, even anti-directions are diffused, intellectual ideas are murky. This is the world we live in and it is impossible to write poetry the way we did in the past.

Still no answer to the greatest mystery running through both volumes, however. I'll have to read volume 3 to see if they enlighten the reader, or else live my life never understanding why on earth they have a problem with the word "and" and insist on using the ampersand in its place. Is this a political thing I missed out on? Are we reclaiming the ampersand much like Prince ("The Artist") thwarted words when renaming himself with a symbol? What's the deal here?

These are hefty volumes of poetry & I definitely recommend them, but not out of order. I think it's important to read volume one before volume two in order to better understand the trajectory of Rothenberg/Joris' project. ( )