I sometimes talk about the making of a poem within the poem.
I think there was a revolution in poetry, associated chiefly with Eliot and Pound; but maybe it is of the nature of revolutions or of the nature of history that their innovations should later come to look trivial or indistinguishable from technical tricks.
Occasionally a student writer comes up with something really beautiful and moving, and you won't know for years if it was an accident or the first burst of something wonderful.
I think there's one thing which distinguishes our art - we don't consider. We don't think. We write a little verse because it comes to us.
I would talk in iambic pentameter if it were easier.
I never abandoned either forms or freedom. I imagine that most of what could be called free verse is in my first book. I got through that fairly early.
A chronicle is very different from history proper.
I've thought of the last line of some poems for years and tried them out, It wouldn't work because the last line was much too beautiful for the poem.
I liked the kid who wrote me that he had to do a term paper on a modern poet and he was doing me because, though they say you have to read poems twice, he found he could handle mine in one try.
I like all my children, even the squat and ugly ones.
I do insist on making what I hope is sense so there's always a coherent narrative or argument that the reader can follow.
It may be said that poems are in one way like icebergs: only about a third of their bulk appears above the surface of the page.
History is one of those marvelous and necessary illusions we have to deal with. It's one of the ways of dealing with our world with impossible generalities which we couldn't live without.
For a Jewish Puritan of the middle class, the novel is serious, the novel is work, the novel is conscientious application why, the novel is practically the retail business all over again.
A lot happens by accident in poetry.