An amusing list Rupert, but behind it I detect a common conceptual notion. This notion is that there is this thing called poetry that is, as it were, bound up with the human but only in the sense that it is the human that can disclose it, give it shape. In other words it is the idea that independent of history and usage 'poetry' still has an existence; therefore any usage of the term in relation to questions of definition is, theoretically, a speculation on the degree of agreement between the usage and the 'essence'. I expect there is a philosophical term for it.

I find that this kind of thinking about such things as poetry, art, or whatever, is very often done by people who probably would not agree with the idea that poetry had some kind of independent essence, so why do they talk as if it did? If someone does actually believe that, because it fits the metaphysics that stems from their theism or because they recognise poetry as being a spiritual power within their mystical system, then OK , but I don't think that is what we have here.

My idea of 'poetry' is simply descriptive, so the question of 'what is poetry?' or 'what is a poet?' is lightweight. From my point of view Jackson MacLow was a poet because much of what he did looked and sounded and behaved quite similarly to other things that i had witnessed being called 'poetry'. But this doesn't automatically confer any mark of quality - there are loads of things commonly called 'poetry' which have little or no quality. What something is called is not what counts, or shouldn't.

Tim A.