Actually I found more of a political argument in Glaysher’s comments, but there is a certain amount of political spin in singling out the editor’s work for critique since it’s usually the easiest mark. Editors do not generally self edit as well as they edit other people’s work, and this becomes even more the case when you’re dealing with a fast turn around. Nothing was edited on the website aside from making certain obscenities didn’t go up, and I suspect that Sally Anderson, the head co-editor, was given the task of telling Sam which of his poems would go in the volume (which wasn’t the one you criticized).

The Hammill poem chosen for the print anthology is "Sheepherder Coffee." It’s one of the poems I’m indifferent to–pleasant enough to read, but not something I want to reread.

On the reread end, there’s Nancy Willard’s "Victory Gardens," Ursula K. LeGuin’s "American Wars," and Michelle Noullet’s "The Grace of Angels." The last one I found particularly powerful.

There’s also "BAD FAIRIES," but since I wrote that one, I’ll admit I’m partial and not really qualified to judge.

Please, take a look at those poems and tell me what you think.

I chose Hamill’s poem because he is the voice of the movement and a relatively famous contributor; believe me, there were worse. And where, exactly, do you find a political argument in what I wrote?

I found this site while trying to look for a review of the print edition of the anthology, which has been pared down to 150 poems or so (one of which is mine).

FWIW, the Hamill poem you posted isn’t the one chosen for the print anthology.

Though this isn’t a review, I’ll admit I’m rather fond of Julia Alvarez’s poem on page 17-18, "The White House Has Disinvited the Poets." I haven’t read the whole anthology yet, but the sampling I’ve made seems to have the usual mix: works I like, works I find indifferent, works that leave me thinking, "Well, evidently someone liked this."

Be nice to read that sort of a review, rather than a political argument.

I’ve been through a lot of the stuff at Poets Against the War, and there is nothing any good. Nothing. (The same is true of Poets for the War, incidentally.) If you can unearth a gem from either site, I would be delighted to read it.

As usual this article is simply another effort to stifle dissent. The worste art is not the kind that has "a message," it is the kind that has none.

Bad poetry happens when the artist does not use best words, best order to express emotional, psychological, and universal truth.

Bad criticism occurs when the critic focuses not on the poems at hand but on whatever unnacceptable movement they belong to.

This is a very poorly written argument and poorly thought out essay–bad writing actually.

And much more dangerous than the anthology.

In predictable fashion The New York Times Book Review and much
of the media have chosen to support the more radical and supposedly
"enlightened" viewpoint on the tiff with The White House and Laura Bush.

A more misguided and wrong-headed response could
not exist. It’s so fraught with cliches I hardly know where to start.
In general, it’s a pity that Sam Hamill, and others who think like
him, demonstrate once again that poetry, as defined by them
at least, indeed doesn’t matter, so complete is their inability
to think seriously about the threat represented by Saddam Hussein
and his weapons of mass destruction. Their ridiculous pose of mounting
the barricades is really quite contemptible. It is clear that the crowd
alluded to by Mr. Hamill summons poetry to their own radical
distortions and agendas, achieving only a further marginalization
of an art that has all too often, among some, lost allegiance to
the civilizing values of peace, which require defense never more so
than now.

Far from "the conscience of our culture," such poets have
no sense of history and the deep obligations of our country, to
ourselves and to the world, which the burden of power lays
upon us at this juncture. President Bush is right to call the United
Nations to live up to its founding Charter, to be a common refuge
of defense, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,"
not merely consultation, reduced to babel. At this time of national
and international crisis, poets who betray their nation, art, and
humanity merit no audience at The White House.

For a different view of the issues involved, I invite your readers
to consider my essay "The Victory of World Governance":
http://www.fglaysher.com/WorldGov.htm

Frederick Glaysher
http://www.fglaysher.com
Earthrise Press