Print

Print
I think it's best not to use the word. It doesn't mean advanced or innovative and all that; it means you don't know what the result is going to be; purloined from scientific method. It also implies a fixed and tested procedure towards a result which can be replicated and checked.  The only poetry I've felt happy using it for has been stuff which manipulates language (or language elements) without generative impulsion. Holy sonnet's quite fun isn't it. 
pr


On 3 Jul 2016, at 01:38, Kent Johnson wrote:

I have no idea what Jesse Ahad means, but that is probably my often inability to grasp subtlety beyond the most evident dimension.

A question for Peter Riley, many of whose poems I do admire: Would this be OK "experimental"? This take by David Hadbawnik on a certain poet (one very "interested" in Death, to be sure) of the 16th-17th century, published as one of "Three Holy Sonnets" in the new release of Dispatches?

Holy Sonnet 3

Unfriend me, haters, crop me out of yr selfie

which is the world; leave me like a fuckboi

after a midnight booty call — look, then

swipe me away to online oblivion,

a bad date with a dad bod and no game.

Dismiss me in a vicious subtweet

I’ll never see — block, unfollow, flag me

as offensive, send me to the spam box…

For I do worse every day to him

who forwarded my soul (a corrupt file)

to the King. And though I suffer exile

virtually, desperate for a "like,"

his love stripped anonymity away

so his avatar was deleted for real.