In the later books I am much more at home in the use of language to describe things. I had never thought of that until a critic pointed that out.
A lot of my students are Asian-American, and it has been thrilling to watch them break through the stereotypes into something alive and surprising.
I love to create interesting textures with language. You can do it as long as it seems like a discovery.
I seem to keep returning to my father in poems because his personality was so extreme, so driven. He did everything to excess.
I think that it's more likely that in my 60s and 70s I will be writing poetry rather than fiction.
I love to compare different time frames. Poetry can evoke the time of the subject. By a very careful choice of words you can evoke an era, completely throw the poem into a different time scale.
If a poem is not memorable, there's probably something wrong. One of the problems of free verse is that much of the free verse poetry is not memorable.
If people associate me with a region, that's fine with me.
I love chapbooks. They're in some ways the ideal form in which to publish and read poems. You can read 19 poems in a way you can't sit down and read 60 to 70 pages of poems.
In the late 60s and early 70s, I did get interested in voices, and in narration and embodying the voice, making the poem sound like a real person talking.
I don't think poetry is something that can be taught. We can encourage young writers, but what you can't teach them is the very essence of poetry.
It was less a literary thing than a linguistic, philosophical preoccupation... discovering how far you can go with language to create immediate, elementary experience.
Maybe the example of Southern fiction writing has been so powerful that Southern poets have sort of keyed themselves to that.
In the best fiction, the language itself can become almost invisible.
A poem in form still has to have voice, gesture, a sense of discovery, a metaphoric connection, as any poetry does.