The Atlantic‘s five part series on poetry continues with this piece on “slow poetry.” I skipped over the third in the series, which discussed “flarf.” Why? Because, frankly, I have little interest in flarf. I don’t deny its aesthetic value, merely that those aesthetics have yet to grow on me.
Slow poetry – that sounds like something more up my alley.
Of course, it quite self-consciously reflects the “slow food” movement. The idea of slow, close reading and respect for local small presses is something I can get behind.
He also discusses (all too briefly) the difference between “nature” poetry and contemporary “ecopoetics.” The argument being that traditional, pastoral poetry is insufficient for the poet writing today. If you write about nature without writing about the human threat under which nature lives, you are just engaging in a paternalistic program (he calls it “ecological orientalism”).
the coffee philosopher 
I’ve only read the first two pieces but – one day, soon I hope – will get to the other two. However, I disagree with his view of pastoral poetry. While I am very much concerned with environmental issues I still think there’s plenty of room for admiring and celebrating the beauty *and* resilience of nature without selling out on the environmental front.
Maybe in an effort to emphasize the relevance of poetry, he felt the need to politicize poetry.
That said, I do see his point – and it does seem to answer some nagging doubts in the back of my head. But then again, I am a very political person (though I do not write political poetry!).
There are people who wear me out. Activists are on that list. I write poetry about nature. These people don’t need to read it if they don’t want to. Thank you for the thoughtful snippet.