However:

My one full-length book, Of Manywhere-at-Once, devotes one (highly favorable) chapter apiece of its twenty chapters to: (1) Yeats, (2) Keats, (3) Stevens, (4) Pound and (5) Roethke, only one of whom was seriously experimental. It also positively discusses a Shakespeare sonnet and a passage by neo-formalist, Richard Wilbur (albeit Wilbur's passage is surrealistic). The book contains a full chapter on the standard auditory devices of alliteration, rhyme, etc., as well. Its central claim is that the metaphor is what most makes poetry what it is, not freshness of technique. Its central narrative concerns my attempt to write a traditional sonnet, with many versions of the sonnet-in-progress shown. The final version of that sonnet, by the way, is now on display at Anny's site.

My website, Comprepoetica, has a section devoted to bios of anyone who calls himself a poet and send me a bio (or would if I hadn't gotten so far behind at running the damned thing). It is open to every kind of poet. An essay section is similarly open to essays by anyone on any variety of poetry.

I've written a half dozen or more reviews for American Poetry Review. Only one of them was about a burstnorm poet, and all but one of the others were quite favorable about poets I consider very mainstream, the latest being Catherine Daly.

I've written a number of reviews of conventional haiku for Modern Haiku. My Small Press Review column is specialized, so does cover my kind of poets just about exclusively, but I've also written positive reviews outside my column of other kinds of poets for it.

Here at New-Poetry I've many times praised poems by knownstream poets. That I should be expected not to give my opinion about knownstream poems and poets I don't like seems to me ridiculous. That I should be considered primarily (or SOLELY) self-aggrandizing seems to me insane. I say that however wrong I can certainly be, and opinionated I nearly always am, my main concern as a commentator on poetry is NOT to obliterate all but one tiny form of it in order to rank first in the field; it is simply to give my honest view of poetry in hopes that others will learn or be entertained by it, and possibly help me improve it with intelligent criticism of it rather than with my alleged motives for holding it.

Note: I think a problem many have with what I say is that they too unreflectingly take my (often over-stated)negativity about one aspect of a poem to mean I think the poem is worthless. For particular instance (locution intended), I might speak scornfully of how unadventurous some poem is, technically. That would not mean I hated it. I might, and sometimes do in such a case, very much admire it. I will admit that I have a tempermental difficulty in understanding poets who never take technical risks. Consequently, I'm apt to attack them for this "flaw." Yes, I genuinely look down on them for having it. Still, to each his own, and we all have flaws. Ergo, even then, my attack won't necessarily mean I think their poetry no good. I think Spacks' late night in a tower poem excellent, in fact. I can't say the same for any of my worse denigrator's poetry, but haven't seen much of it (and will say that what I have seen of it seems competent enough, and sometimes amusing).