Cottage Street, 1953

Framed in her phoenix fire-screen, Edna Ward
Bends to the tray of Canton, pouring tea
For frightened Mrs. Plath; then, turning toward
The pale, slumped daughter, and my wife, and me,

Asks if we would prefer it weak or strong.
Will we have milk or lemon, she enquires?
The visit seems already strained and long.
Each in his turn, we tell her our desires.

It is my office to exemplify
The published poet in his happiness,
Thus cheering Sylvia, who has wished to die;
But half-ashamed, and impotent to bless,

I am a stupid life-guard who has found,
Swept to his shallows by the tide, a girl
Who, far from shore, has been immensely drowned,
And stares through water now with eyes of pearl.

How large is her refusal; and how slight
The genteel chat whereby we recommend
Life, of a summer afternoon, despite
The brewing dusk which hints that it may end.

And Edna Ward shall die in fifteen years,
After her eight-and-eighty summers of 
Such grace and courage as permit no tears,
The thin hand reaching out, the last word *love*,

Outliving Sylvia who, condemned to live,
Shall study for a decade, as she must,
To state at last her brilliant negative
In poems free and helpless and unjust.


--Richard Wilbur

I am not a poet or a lover of poems. My primary reason for writing is I came across your site while doing some research on conspiracy theories. Actually, I came across an essay on the JFK assassination and UFOs written by Dan Schneider. I enjoyed his debunking of the myth as well as his explaining many of the literary tricks thatbelievers use to skew their arguments. So I started reading other of his essays on film and politica and religion and eventually poetry. Again I do not like poetry but as in his piece on UFOs I was taken by how he explained precisely many of the things I would think of when forced to read a poem in class or by an insistent friend. It also reminded me of some of Tom Wolfe's writings debunking the Ab Ex movement. So I read some of the This Old essays and found myself quite amused and enlightened. Then I read other pieces on criticism, which were too long for my taste. Poetry bores me even if it's pretty good. Then I came across your piece. Rather the one written about you and looked a bit online at your pieces.

I am a bit puzzled as to your hostility? It seems to me that you should be championing people like Schneider. Instead you seem to veer off into explanations that make no logical sense. I read your review of some poems and then Schneider's comments and it seemed that he simply distilled what you were and were not stating, for whatever your own reasons. Again I am not a poetry expert but I have seen these postmodern poems that are a singular word or image typed ad nauseum and Schneider's explanation made sense. At least more than yours. Again I'm sure I know far less than either of you but Wolfe touches on this in a book called the Painted Word, I believe.

It seems to me as an outside observer that you and artists like Ab Ex ers try to flaunt your 'knowledge' above peons like me then get hostile when the Wolfe's or Schneiders call you on it. The reason I write is because I am a follower of psi phenomenon. I am not a believer but find it culturally relevent. I belonged to MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) years ago but quickly got turned off by the cliquishness and anger displayed towards those who sought rational explanations for things that at first blush seemed mysterious. I am not suggesting that the irrational in art or science is not worthy of study but it seems to me that too many folk exalt it as an end to itself. I may not be able to argue meter and rhymes, etc with you but I do know a bent against the rational when I see it. Magic is good but ultimately it's a thing for children's birthday parties.

That aside it seems to me that your writings in response to Schneider are merely giving him more fuel for the fire. A fire if the essay on Schneider's site is correct that you first lit for whatever reasons. Again, it seems to me that you are the true believer standing in a crop circle claiming it was succubi or UFOnauts who did it after the Schneiders and Wolfes have proven it was a couple of crackpots. The public may be gullible as Barnum proved but there are limits to even that.

I would suggest you read some books by Philip Klass or Jacques Vallee (a hard and soft debunker) to see how closely your protestations resemble those of true believers in the paranormal. Or go to the Skeptical Inquirer website. It's quite funny how easily they shred through claims and point out the obvious.

Please don't take this too hard for I don't understand much poesy but your mathemaku do strike me as primarily visual art. Whether good or merely puzzles as Schneider claims I do not know but I do know I've learned much from reading his essays, even poetry!

Thanks for your time, T.C. Woods