Talk:Language poets

Link error
Apologies if this is in the wrong place, but I am experiencing loading errors for a link in the external links section of this page: http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/LANGUAGE/language.html. That would be the Language online archive link.

If this is happening for other users it should be removed, however it could be my OpenDNS acting up.

Shed light if you can

Redlion145 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Examples
Any chance anyone can give us a short example of what one of these L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poems looks like? I feel that would go further than any amount of abstract definition in giving us an idea of what one of this "non-referential" poems could be like. - PaulHammond 15:46, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are copyright and other problems here. If you look at the online archive of L=A=N=G=A=G=E magazine, from the external links, you'll find loads of examples. Filiocht 11:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The article as it now stands simply does not say what this type of poetry is. It is, as PH indicated, too abstract and too much directed at insiders.Kdammers 03:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the difficulties of discussing poetry is that while the poems are concrete, anything you have to say about them is necessarily somewhat abstract. These poets use a wide variety of techniques to make their poetry. Its not as though you could say "language poets write short lines" or "language poets use informal language" or "language poets stress line breaks". Any of these things might be true of some language poets sometimes, but are hardly unifying. Opposite assertions could be just as validly argued.

What the language poets do have in common is that they all started writing poetry around the same time and share, to one extent or another, a certain number of beliefs about how poetry should be written. I think the article does an excellent, unbiased job describing both counts. ---Ryan
 * That is only true if you buy into the coterie definition of genre, which is extremely problematic. Firstly, it means genres die and cannot be resurrected — because the specific people are the genre not the writing style itself! This is an automatic massive devaluation of anyone working in that genre later (since they can't actually be doing that at all, according to the coterie lovers) and also of the writing itself — arguing that it's impossible for it to have value/interest without being tied to the biographical information of the writers and location/culture historical interest. As someone who has been historically sympathetic to so-called New Criticism (although seeing its limits) it didn't take long for me to find this definition of genre fairly foolish. Secondly, it requires partitioning those who are in the coterie from those who are not. Who makes that decision? It reeks of high school. It makes poetry a matter of politics not art, even though it tries to look anthropological. What makes more sense is to situate subgenres within historical/cultural/geographical/coterie context. So, a subgenre of language poetry can be L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E magazine writers and those closely associated, while the broader genre would not be a country club that morphs into a mausoleum.
 * I just occurred to me that the way people seem so ready to fall into the coterie trap may be reflective of the frequency with which the "necro" irrationalism pops up in Internet forums, and in the behavior of people with regard to the Internet. This is the problem, identified by the creator of the Internet Archive, as the incessant blithe destruction of IP. Humanity seems to be increasingly content to destroy what it creates, even to the point of becoming furious when people don't do exactly that (see all the crying about "necro" posts/topics from so-called moderators on forums and their toadies, for example). Some forums even automatically lock and delete topics according to an arbitrary set time limit (or "archive" them to accomplish basically the same thing). Most aren't that honest about their frivolous censorship and mask the process with a lot of illogical window dressing. The coterie definition of genre fits nicely with the "disposable knowledge" know-nothing society we are increasingly becoming. Perhaps this is because knowledge is the biggest threat to the increasing economic stratification we are seeing and policy that is leading us off the ecological cliff. What is more attractive than genres that are partitioned by moderators (country club) and are locked by moderators (mausoleum)? Leona Helmsley set aside millions to keep her dog's tomb dust-free, in a macro-sized microcosm of our contemporary experience and training. Yes, of course, history matters in terms of being able to discuss things like artistic progress. However, it's not as linear and as narrow as many would like to portray it as. History may be written by the victors but history is more than their writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.217 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a beautiful example of an article that uses hundreds of words to say absolutely nothing at all. Having read through the article twice, I'm still none the wiser as to what in Erith this is all about. 10:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would love to add on to this article, but I'm not sure what people expect. An article on a specific branch of poetry shouldn't have to first expain all the poetic and philosophical positions that may or may not underpin it--they have their own sections. Everything in the article seems to have a link, so if you want to know what a Black Mountain Poet is, you can link to it and find out. The best analogy I can think of, if it helps, is that the Language poets are like the Bloomsbury Circle (Virginia Woolf and her pals, for those of you who don't know)--they are a grouping that has as much to do with history and association as any sort of concrete link between their actual work. If the article seems to be a bit loaded with big academic-type words and ideas, that's because the language poets approach IS loaded that way. If you want the author to unpack all that stuff, it's going to take countless pages of discussion regarding Postmodern Philosophy and 20th century poetry to do so. I just read what the Norton Anthology of Postmodern Poetry had to say about the language poets and it seems to cover pretty much the same territory, at about the same level of discourse. If it's good enough for Norton, it's good enough for me.71.139.51.5 06:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I made some changes to the poetics section that I think clarifies as much as possible, but really, I agree with you. In order to understand Language Poetry in the abstract, there's a certain amount of basic information about poetry that one needs to have. I think the article should exist and it is as specific as it can get without delving into a long winded discussion of Postmodern philosophy in general. The links are there, so a reader doesn't have to search out the information, they just have to do the work.JFQ 22:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been a bunch of new activity on this entry, and I note the very rough, not very careful, and partisan discussion of *The Grand Piano* project. As this publication project is still in the production phase--part 4 is just out, and six more volumes are planned--it seems premature to draw conclusions about it. A mention and a simple description seems appropriate, but what is involved here is a spillover from blog comments lines--inappropriate to Wikipedia. I note also that the Finkelstein comment is absolutely minimal and of no value as a cite. Bwatten 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wittgenstein connection ... what evidence is there?
What sources do we have for the statement that "The language poets also drew on the philosophical works of Ludwig Wittgenstein, especially his idea of language as game"? On the face of it this seems a little odd &mdash; unless the poets were labouring under something of a misconception &mdash; as Wittgenstein's Sprachspiel or language-game was intended "to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life." Wittgenstein's language-games were not about play with language, but in the vein of the Gedankenexperiment, a way of illustrating how the bedrock of language's meaning is not a reference but that meaning derives from the fact that language is an integral part of human activities. &mdash; Stumps 11:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good point--I think the idea here is that the language poets are interested in what it means to write a poem--a language structure--once one assumes (via Wittgenstein) that meaning is unstable. No more author speaking down from the mount of absolute truth. No more poem as object with an absolute, unarguable meaning. Maybe. I'm having a hard time finding good sources for alot of the content (especially stuff that would be accesible to the lay-reader), even though my gut reaction is that what the author wrote is true and unbiased. It seems like the only good way to make a totally unquestionable article would be to strip it of much of its content: Here are the writers, this is what they wrote, the end. This would make it even less enlightening.

As for a summary that might shed some light on the subject for those who are unfamiliar with the movement, I've failed entirely. Here's a quote from the Norton. Since it's an introductory kind of book, it might provide a good general summary. Maybe someone can work some of these ideas in, although they seem to me to be already pretty well represented:

"[Language Poetry] emphasizes textuality and therefore a degree of difficulty. Strongly based in theory, it requires an initiated reader.  In its difficulty and literariness, language poetry is reminiscent of the High Modernism of T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound.  Yet language poetry is Marxist and feminist in theory and disdains Pound and Eliot for their politically conservative themes." --Norton Anthology of Postmodern American Poetry, introduction pg. xxxv, Ed. Paul Hoover, ISBN 0-393-31090-6.

Does that help any? Thanks.71.139.51.5 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The meme is also a feature of language poetry, particularly those that use broken English. Are meme writers and those who enjoy them at the top of the ivory tower of academe? e.e. Cummings is a language poet, in my view, as well — primarily due to his unconventional formatting. (Dickinson may be the prototype forerunner, with her peculiar punctuation and other strategies) Elementary-age kids, at least when I was in school, were given poems like Cummings' in just to read. Therefore, I'm not certain that language poetry, when it is defined as "putting particular pressure on the mechanics of language" is necessarily strongly obscurantist, requiring an ivory tower toolset to unpack. Yes, kids like me wondered what Cummings was taking when he wrote in just and why we're supposed to think it's well-crafted and important rather than being fairly frivolous gimmickry. Aside from the exaggerated formatting, I thought things like "puddle wonderful" were corny. However, many of us were raised on things like the Seuss "B Book" so we could handle language games. Regardless, the formatting of poems like that, in particular, had a strong impact and put significant pressure on English-language conventions. I think memes like the cat has cheeseburger are language poetry, in a minimalist (and humorous) visually-aided form. Memes are not a new thing. They were not invented by the Internet generation. They aren't all language poetry, though. Some are more conventional, such as political cartoons (a joke + usually some fairly dry-appearing prose). Although I resist classifying myself as a language poet, mainly due to the nebulousness of the category, I can see why two writers classified me that way. Not coincidentally, much of my early output was meme-ish. There is an anomic element of Dada inherent in "putting pressure" on language. The concepts and history related to Dadaism and anomie should be included in this article.


 * Thanks ... yes that does help ... poetry is a language-game, and the meaning of the words is inextricably bound up with the fact that they are being used in a poem. That makes some sort of sense to me from a philosophy angle.  I think the articles phrase "language as game" glosses over this and sets a false trail along the lines of "it's all a game" and that meaning isn't a central idea, whereas I think Wittgenstein was very much concerned with meaning and showing that it was much more complex than a simple referential model suggests.  Someone, I can't remember who, maybe it was Don Cupitt, gave the example of cricketers shouting 'Howzat!' ... to know how to use that piece of language correctly you have to understand all the complex rules of cricket; 'Howzat' has a very definite meaning as it is immediately apparent if someone uses it incorrectly, but it is almost impossible to define it adequately in a dictionary.  I'm keen to see that Wittgenstein (as opposed perhaps to later interpretations of Wittgenstein) is not misrepresented in the article. &mdash; Stumps 08:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * for more information, you can look to Marjorie Perloff's book Wittgenstein's Ladder, which discusses the influence of Wittgenstein on several LangPoets in depth. The reference to wittgenstein in the article as it currently stands is confusing and misleading, both about language poets and wittgenstein, neither of whom would call language "just a game," which is the implication. User:JFQ
 * I went ahead and cleared up some of the Wittgenstein stuff. User:JFQ
 * Thanks. Good job! Stumps 10:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Should maybe be noted that the poets themselves were keen on mentioning Wittgenstein - see 'The L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Book', etc. Compass tom

The Wittgenstein influence in the Language school precedes Perloff's noticing it and can be found in numerous locations. I would point to the chapter on Conceptual Art and Art-Language in my *Total Syntax* (1985) and the publication of *Poetics Journal* 3, "Poetry and Philosophy" (1983). The form of the "New Sentence" discussed in the critical collection of that name by Ron Silliman, and used in practice by myself, Steve Benson, Carla Harryman, Lyn Hejinian, Silliman, and many others in the Language school, is directly attributable to Wittgenstein's influence, both in substance and style. Silliman's *The Chinese Notebook*, with its numbered propositions, closely resembles the form of Wittgenstein's *Tractatus*. There is much more that could be said carefully here, but I would generalize that before poststructuralism became widely disseminated in the U.S., Wittgenstein was the most important philosophical influence of the Language school Bwatten

I haven't read the entire oeuvre of all Language Poets -- with the exception of Rosmarie Waldrop's work -- she used Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations as source text for Reproduction of Profiles, which is quite clear if your read them side by side. Karxpava

Name of group
I've seen "langpo" used informally/casually or, sometimes, sarcastically/belittlingly, mostly via email, but I don't think it's quite as settled an abbreviation as the final part of the article implies. ND 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty settled as an informal label, and doesn't have to be pejorative, i don't think. perhaps the article should just reference it as an informal abbreviation?JFQ 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Langpo" is a slang term for Language poetry, often used on blogs and listservs. It is a casual usage that can have a pejorative slant, so it is better used not to name the group. The name, properly, should be "Language poetry"--the Wiki heading should be changed to reflect the practice of most writers of the movement.

Aggggh.... I see that some well-meaning person has spent ages rewriting every instance of "Language" -> "L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E". I don't think anyone but pedants uses the hyphens anymore--should this be reverted? (Or edited, anyway, as it looks like much straightforwardly useful stuff was added, at least.) ND 03:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC) is it pedantic or just a sign of affection for these aging poets? I am more fond of the ampersand usage by poets of the earlier part of the 20th century. karxpava

"relatively high number of female poets"
Er, relative to what, exactly? It's a meaningless claim unless the basis of comparison is stated. ND 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Citations
It seems to me that a few of the sections bearing the "citation needed" stamp have been changed or adequately verified, for instance the Wittgenstein paragraph (lots of info on the talk page). Can some of them be removed? The final sentence in the "This Magazine" paragraph seems self-evident (almost tautologicaly so)--it says, in essence, that the poetic contributions to an influential poetry magazine were influential to the kind of poetry that (as is stated earlier in the paragraph) it influenced--as opposed to just the quoted essay. Perhaps the wording is a bit strange. Unless there is some question about the role of This Magazine, I personally don't see a problem. Maybe it could use a rewrite for clarity's sake....Thanks.--Staple 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about: "Of course, the genesis of language poetry can be traced to no single declaration. Instead, it was the range of contemporary poetries focusing on "language" in the first issue of This that established the consensus that would develop into a school of poetry.".  Or: "Of course, the range of contributions to the first issue of This that focused on "language" influenced the establishment of language poetry as much as any single declarative statement.".  Any better?  Thanks.--Staple 03:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * that is better. i say go with it. I pulled out a few of those myself yesterday, since i was the one who put them there in the first place and i felt like the "where did this information come from?" nature of certain statements had been resolved. I think your rewrites of that given sentence do solve that problem there as well, so get down with your bad self and do it.:)JFQ 03:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Rereading the article this morning, i'm going to kill the last of those Fact tags. I also think we're at the point where the cleanup notice can be removed. thoughts?JFQ 17:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New attention from interested editors & Naming conventions for American poetry movments
Am i to take it from the user names of the folks who've taken an interest in this article that a couple of the language poets have themselves been updating the article? I think that's a fascinating turn up and just wanted to say thanks for taking an interest. Re: User:Bwatten's comment about the need for a Black Mountain school page, a lot of that information is currently covered under Black Mountain poets although I agree it needs a lot of work. AFAIK, the convention that editors have been using so far to discuss specific movements is to title the page after the group, for example this page is called 'Language poets' rather than 'Language poetry' although it could really go either way. Perhaps that convention needs to be changed, and I think i'd be in favor of it, but i think we should avoid having articles duplicating themselves.JFQ 17:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What's missing?
I really like how much improvement has happened to this article recently. to my thinking, what is currently missing in order to make this article approach the asymptote of completion are some images and the cultural context for the movement, which is one of the goals of Wikiproject:poetry. I don't have the resources or background to do that, but i hope that someone else does. Does anyone else have any other suggestions for items that should be included in the article that aren't currently present?JFQ 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've become quite interested in this project and have written a post on my homepage on the process, which I hope to continue to participate in as I learn more about how the editing interface works. I hope this discussion will be of interest to those working on this entry; it's at . Bwatten
 * I finally got around to reading this. It's a useful reflection. I'm considering adding a section to the article about the name of the article for this very reason. I'm also tempted to speculate about what happens to wikipedia's holy grail of NPOV when the article and the movement start to interplay with eachother. Unfortunately the stuff i find really interesting about it would qualify as Original research. Maybe i'll write it up on my litblog and then link to it from the references page.JFQ 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting development in this project for sure. And Barrett Watten's article is fascinating. Rigorous, but if you re-read it or give over to its scrutiny and analysis, it is very rewarding. Probably should add it as a link here or to the Watten page...certainly interesting to consider how this corroborates some of what's going on, but in this post-modern "moment", what becomes of this Language poets wikipedia article article and its final shape we won't know, I suppose.

Interesting that this Language poets article is or is not--- or more pointedly, may or may not be--- a palimptext, I believe is the word, because the article is written over, and yet we truly can see every version of this thing as it occurred here, instead of the impossible task of erasing the painting to catch a glimpse of the original...so it isn't a palimptext in that sense...just some quick responses after reading Watten's post, and other items here. Need to add some covers of those various magazines that appeared in the 70's & 80's, but there are some copyright issues that perhaps Mr. Watten could approve, ie. a cover of "This" mag, etcChristian Roess 11:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea of adding graphics is a good one, and I can scan covers and very likely arrange some permissions. How are they added, where would they go? BW
 * A good example of how images could be incorporated into the article would be theImagism article. Images are uploaded using Special:Upload. A full writeup of how to upload images is at Uploading images.

If you want help loading images, let me know and I will send you an email address you can send them to and will upload them for you. I'd love to see images on this article; it is a wonderful example of the many roles an article on Wikipedia can play. Once we get some images, I'd like to get some footnotes and links added to this (especially links that take us to poetry) and then see it go on the Portal:Poetry as a featured article to get more visibility. BW, I rather like the post on your homepage. One other interesting aspect that can give some fodder for thought is the time-based aspect of Wikipedia. It is quite easy to flip through and see the article as it has developed over time, and none of the comments are ever lost, even the typos. Sam 12:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

continuity and rupture
I removed this sentence: Both continuity and rupture are important to this moment of literary evolution. from the overview section because i don't think it's very clear, and the stubs linked to are not particularly helpful. I'd like to see this idea expanded and the hyperbolic phrase "moment of literary evolution" toned down a bit, but i don't really have a clear understand what the editor who added it meant by this sentence, so don't want to take the job on myself and get it wrong.JFQ 23:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Name of group and origins
There is no stable name for this group and indeed it continues to be referred to with and without equal signs; indeed, Google seach gives about 50,000 uses for the term with the equals and as number of the key critical articles use the equal signs. In the current version, the name is given differently in different contexts. History has been revised to reflect multiple perspectives and to increased range of reference; nothing taken out, additional contexts added.

Controversial topic
I am disputing the reversion of this article back to the use of a magazine title to NAME an entire movement. This was argued and debate over the Spring and Summer of 2006, and an anonymous user as added the equal sign again without giving sufficient context for that change. Once again, this article needs revision or reversion to the earlier version which it seems the Wikipedia community has begun to reach a consensus.Christian Roess 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The RETURN of the Hyphen; or is it an "equal sign"?
or ===the most boring shit you'll ever read in your life===

Well, an "anonymous" editor (at the IP address 71.233.90.233) has added the "hypen" back throughout the article...Me (user:Christian Roess) and (user: ND) are having a discussion about it here>User_talk:71.233.90.233.

In a few weeks I am going to REMOVE the "equal sign", folks. Now, I understand fully that Wikipedia is about Consensus. It is not about what I want in particular. Maybe its a search for some kind of "plurality" (albeit an "agonistic plurality").

If this is what is agreed upon...OK...The "ethos" of Wikipedia is not (necessarily) about "truth", or "feelings"..."right" or "wrong"..

BUT: there is a long term consequence to something as seemingly "innocent" or "inconsequential" as adding an "equal sign" between the letters of the word "Language"

As Barrett Watten points out somewhere ( and I mention it here to fellow wikipedians so you can think about it y'all): there is a sense of "accomplishment" by sitting down and writing the word "Language" separated by "hyphens". But what is really going on here?

(...and so wikipedians think about what you're doing here. Think about the process itself or be mindful of the procedure which might go something like this:


 *  I just love to sit at my typewriter and insert the equal sign between the letters...L=A=N=G=...and it is a curious indulgence, in the sense that there must be some reason that this designation, this habit, continues to inhabit the discussion from the head thru the heart down the arm by the hand VIA the writing I=N=S=T=U=M=E=N=T...)

I mean there MUST BE SOME REASON??? Right????

An argument can be made for the "visible", maybe even the "actual"? & physical & pleasurable indulgence of the "hypen". But does such a "desire", in all its facets and designations, justify its continued use to name an entire "school" of poetics?

What is the big deal, you ask?

Anyhow, check out Barrett Watten's article ''On First Looking into Wikipedia's "Language" for an interesting discussion. Rather frustatingly, Watten points out some reasons against the use of "hypens" or the "equal sign". Indeed, such a "practice" is misleading and is damaging ... And Watten's discussion is pertinent for a different reason than you may believe. Its a thoughtful, fully self conscious piece. It would be easy to for Watten to succumb to self-aggrandizement...But the integrity of the thinking here comes through.

In other words, Watten (as a "founding" member & a "precedent figure" of the Language school itself) could have (would have) a personal axe to grind, or he could have some kind of "agenda" hidden or otherwise. That being said, Watten's article about this article on the Language poets here at Wikipedia communicates something else. And that "something else" is far from being self-serving.

Its a much needed, and refreshing counter balance to the banter that masquerades as "thought" or "discourse" on both the cable TV & radio talk show circuit Christian Roess 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Language poets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630065810/http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/posts/post34.html to http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/posts/post34.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Three points about so-called language poetry
1) Although this article says the movement is characterized by being highly decentralized, I was told that I could not possibly be writing language poetry by Catherine Wagner. She said that, as I was not part of the coterie of language poets, I couldn't become one. This is an example of arguing that it is a group of people, like a clique, rather than being a style/genre. The article also appears to resist this claim by listing a variety of people outside of the original coterie. I had been told by two writers (one, the fiction writer Brett Singer, and the other the poet Joel Lipman) at two different universities, prior to our conversation, that my work reminded them strongly of language poetry. Lipman even wrote it on his blackboard, around 1997, with the equals signs in-between the letters when he brought it up (the first time I had heard of it). Who decides what style a writer is writing in and who decides who is allowed to be part of a style/genre? It's clearly very debatable. I found the coterie argument unpersuasive at the time and the current state of this article reinforces that impression. However, the caveat is that if one specifically sticks to the magazine title, with its equals signs, then one could choose to locate that coterie as being a restrictive subset of the more general style of language poetry.

2) There is the bit about narcissism at the end of the article. Narcissism is mildly interesting in relation to this style in more ways that that. For instance, is it narcissistic to claim that only a specific group of people can own a style/genre? I would say so. It also suggests that genres/styles automatically die when the writers stop writing or pass away. It's allegedly dangerously narcissistic for obscure poets to promote themselves via "self-definition" but it's not narcissistic to call one's work "language poetry" in the first place? (I don't know if anyone can cite a source that tackled that question but it would improve the paragraph with the reference to narcissism.) Firstly, is this "language poetry" encompassing all of the world's languages, historic, contemporary, and synthetic? If not, then it's "English language poetry". That is a broad category, isn't it? I found the name "language poetry" intriguing when I was introduced to it but it also smelled of gimmickry because it implied that the poetry is about language (in general, not in terms of specific theoretical points) more than other poetry, a highly-controversial claim, clearly. Even the most "non-language poetry" poetry changes drastically when translated. The equal signs reminded me of something like Pop Art. Pop Art is fun, of course. However, it's also gimmicky and hollow, comparatively. Duchamp urinals are utterly fascinating, particularly in terms of philosophical informativeness, for a few moments and then something with more artistic craftsmanship, like a good Van Gogh, one (or, at least many, such as myself) finds, has more (aesthetic) lasting power, due to there being more (artistic) data embedded in the product. Point of all this is that the article should have something about the narcissistic nature of the style title itself: "language poetry". It's nice to justify it by talking about putting pressure on the mechanics of language. Sure, why not? Well, why not call it, then, "linguistics poetry", "language mechanics", "linguistical poetry", or something similarly more to-the-point? Narcissism is also an easy catch-all label, often a type of ad hominem, that can be stuck onto just about anything one wants to complain about. It's rather vacuous a concern, particularly for avant-garde artists. Poetry is narcissistic. Art is narcissistic. The human mind is narcissistic. Etc. When poets stop attaching their names to their work and publish under Anonymous exclusively (also eschewing all types of fortune/fame, including career-building/recognition) then, perhaps, complaints about narcissism will carry more authority.

3) Are authors really so trapped by style/genre? Is a person a "language poet" simply because a portion of their work either intends to be in that mode or is recognized by enough others to be classified as such, regardless of authorial intent? This seems to be a general problem with the categorization of authors. I cannot speak for all writers but I have more than one clear mode of writing, at least three. Having more or fewer is an arbitrary issue, in terms of value, but it's not in terms of classification. It's noteworthy to note when writers have multiple genre/style classifications. People seem to really enjoy pigeonholing people with simple categories but it may be a good idea to put some pressure on the results of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.217 (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * English-language mechanics-oriented poetry. Clunky but clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.217 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ELMO. It's catchier as an acronym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.217 (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or, to avoid the wrath of infinite copyright (or general silliness), one might call it E-L M-O, or ELMOP. I suppose it could be argued that this suggestion is overly-broad, since "mechanics" can be something like Shakespearian sonnets. However, what is broader than "language" for a genre of poetry — particularly one that is English-language specific? I can definitely see the usefulness of the equals signs to differentiate/discriminate, given that broadness. However, even with them, the name is obtuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.217 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * nano — machine code (binary)
 * micro — assembler
 * low-level — C, Forth
 * medium — Pascal?, C++?
 * higher-level — Objective C?
 * scripting — Python, Ruby
 * natural language (NLP) — e.g. English


 * “Language poetry” may be best situated, in comparison with other forms, using something very similar to this computer science software design hierarchy, one that moves from the smallest kernels of language to the highest. This, in conjunction with a renaming of “language poetry” to be more accurate, such as by embedding its English-language nature into an acronym. Compare P. Inman with Frost, using this, for instance. Also, I should mention that I don't take issue with the magazine name, as a magazine name and as a historical group. However, as a general genre/style, the name "language" is too problematic for the reasons I mentioned. Also, if we want to not always specify the English language, as this kind of writing can be done in other languages, then a larger acronym could contain ELMOP (or E-L M-O, depending upon one's preference). I didn't mean to imply that only the English language can support a type of poetry. However, if everyone who has done it has done it in English that's noteworthy, at least in terms of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.63 (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)