Saturday, January 24, 2009

There has been a lot of hoo-ha both in the poetry
and non-poetry universe about the merits (and demerits)
of Elizabeth Alexander's inauguration poem.
It's been amusing and fascinating to follow
these conversations/arguments/defenses -- my favorites
are on Reb Livingston's blog and Collin Kelley's blog.
(Be sure to read the comments!)

The following -- which made me laugh out loud --
is from a conversation at The Guardian:

How many poets does it take to change a light bulb?


And one million more to say how much better
they would have done at changing it.

--credited to imikeydread


  1. I like your word "hoo-hah" in regards to this (actually, I like that word in general, too). It reminds me of the heated debate among foodies about who should be executive chef in the Obama White House. I thought Alexander's poem was a workmanlike occasional poem-- & in general I think that occasional poetry tends to sound flat to our ears after a couple of centuries plus of Romanticism (in the big sense of the word).

    Thanks for bringing a sane perspective to this.


  2. Hoo-hah is a great expression. I use it often.