Forgive me, but I’m bugged by the paragraph here asserting that Alexander’s poetry is “very interesting almost as artifact,” and stating that he writes as if certain particular kinds of poetry were never written. First, why is it assumed that every poet’s writing must somehow take in all that’s been written before and then do something different, to reference or acknowledge, explicitly or implicitly, all that’s been done before?

Second, there are many pathways to the garden. Objectivism et al. aren’t the only ways. The path laid out by surrealist writers — Peret to Cesaire to any number of others, including Americans (cf. Lamantia) is for some, including Alexander, a kind of signpost, altered of course by each poet’s particular passion and senses. The surrealist way can be wholly sufficient in itself, and it has evolved it continues to result in marvels of poetry. On this last point, see Andrew Joron’s short but almost encyclopedic Neo-Surrealism, or The Sun at Night (2004) [available via Small Press Distribution].