The introduction to the poetry section of Vol 1, Issue 2, reads: "If poetry is to reclaim a vital pulse in intellectual culture, it must become more difficult."  And later: "Colloquial poetry evinces no mystery at all."  I politely question the first statement on the grounds of evidence - more difficult than what?  Homer, Shakespeare, Ashberry?  Lowell, Plath, Young?  Gluck, Howe, Flynn, Dickman?  I agree there can be merit in difficulty, as is proved by thousands of years of poetic history, but without further stipulations (and I mean more than: "Difficult poetry seeks to question and to complicate, challenging with its nuance the presumptions we bring to bear on experience."  I mean, as far as poetry is concerned, no shit) that sounds like the most boring, lifeless thing I can imagine.

I politely disagree with the second statement, again on the grounds of evidence.  Colloquial poetry is going to be part of the poetic future whether anyone likes it or not.  Poetry written in high-brow, deliberately complex language is really doing well, huh?  I used to bash it, too (colloquial poetry, that is - and to provide examples, Young and Dickman are the best of the aforementioned), and bashed rap and hip-hop in favor of classic rock - but classic rock was bashed when it was around; Picasso was a realist before inventing cubism; and Shakespeare didn't write plays for the King and Queen, he wrote for the lower classes.  Poetry is about evolution and representation, and saying that colloquial poetry evinces no mystery at all is like bitch-slapping the Beats into obscurity.