Big yes to comments below. Not enough is made of the poets often considered innovative who show no interest in theory (Alice is a good example), some even bristle at it, but as always everyone gets tarred with the same brush. My attitude to theory is always after the event - I do what I do but then something from theory will pop up post-writing which I often find helpful. The question then is how much I internalise any theory, and I don't know the answer to that.
Cheers
Tim
Contrary to stereotype, many innovative poets have no interest in theory. Alice Notley, e.g. And of those who are interested and use it in their work, well that can mean a tremendous variety of different things. Adrian Clarke and Simon Jarvis are not really very similar poets. After all, there's a lot of theory out there.
The strongest argument for theory (speaking as a non-theoretician) that I've seen has nothing to do with poetry. Benjamin Noys put it in two sentences: Do you need theory? Not if you're happy with things the way they are. He was claiming, I think, that theory was necessary to probing below the conceptions that constitute the political cultural social world as it now is. I feel the force of that. At the same time, I know a lot of us are not happy with the way things are yet feel no particular need to reach for Hegel in order to campaign against injustice or environmental damage.
