The title intrigued me. And irritated me. And the book never gives any explanation for the odd spelling - or even why the title was chosen.

Because it's about poetry, I will probably keep my copy, but it's the least favorite of my books about poetry. My favorite books about poetry inspire me to write new verse. This book didn't produce new work, although - perhaps coincidentally - I did rewrite a poem I had worked on before about a hitchhiking bee. The book is all about modern poetics, that use little or no rhythm/rhyme. Learning about poetic forms (think Rondeau, for instance) often generates an attempt to use the new form, but there was none of that here.

Some of the examples are interesting. Although I'm still not convinced that the work of Apollinaire is all that great.

I read this book twice. The first time through, I was distracted by all the marginal notes added by the previous owner. I assume it was for a college class - only selected essays got the note-taking treatment. Most of the notes were simply vocabulary (and on words I was already familiar with, although the one word that I had to look up lacked a notation).

Now a bit of back story. I subscribe to Poetry magazine. When it arrives, I am often excited to see what's within. Then I'm disappointed to find nothing I like. I struggle with the section the editor calls "Commentary." Much of the writing is in extreme academic language, and I find it singularly opaque. So I definitely found Tony Hoagland's essays more readable. But on the second reading, I found that I still wasn't "getting it." For example, the essay "Sad Anthropologists" which was about tone left me wondering if I even know what was meant by tone, and if I could ever learn to identify it when I saw it.

The last essay left me feeling unhappy with the whole book. Maybe that's unfair, but there it is. His point was that poetry with a bit of "meanness" was more, shall I say, meaningful. He even complained about a Marianne Moore poem ("The Mind is a Wonderful Thing") for not being mean enough. Give me a break! ( )

A fabulous book for anyone interested in modern poetry. It's argumentative, intelligent, passionate, entertaining and very, very well-written. Each of the essays is his personal take on some aspect of poetry and/or poetics, and if you think that sounds dry then all I can say is go and get a copy: see for yourself.

It's full of laugh-out-loud moments of description – how do you go past things like “metaphor … is the raw uranium of poetry”, or “Fashion is the way that taste changes and then spreads, a kind of swell or wave of admiration”? (Not to mention the final essay, where he suggests that post-modernism has a passive-aggressive attitude to poetry in general and meaning in particular …) But what else would you expect from someone who published a collection with the mischievous title What Narcissism Means to Me?

I can't recommend this book highly enough. If you are at all interested in modern poetry, or even non-modern poetry, give Hoagland a try. (You can even read the final essay in the book online at the Poetry Foundation website.) You won't always agree with him, possibly not even follow some of his arguments. But there's something deeply enjoyable about following a restless intelligence through examinations of the subject of its passion.

There are lots of books on poetics that are intelligent – lectures full of well-made points and lots of insight. Worthwhile, but somehow not especially compelling. You'll go along, but probably not to all of them. (Especially not if you can get someone else to lend you their notes.) Worthy, informative, but somehow bloodless. Dispassionate. But this book is different. This is the tutor who makes the class forget what time the session is meant to finish, or who continues the discussion with all of you at the pub later. This is the tutorial you wouldn't miss even with a force ten hangover. ( )

A great book for any reader of contemporary poetry--I'd also recommend it for those who wish they could get into reading more poetry. Hoagland's hallmark snarky humor is a pleasure, his criticism brilliant, yet plainly stated, and the breadth of his knowledge of english-language poetry is astounding. The pieces on identifying elements or techniques in poetry are helpful even for an experienced writer or reader, and the pieces analyzing and comparing poets make useful companions to the poetry itself. ( )