POP-JUNK POETRY

How cute!

No blame on Nancy Shiffrin, who objectively reports, but now we have the proliferation of pop-junk poetry (“Pop! Go the L.A. Poets,” Aug. 23).

We can enjoy trivial images and word-stringing in the service of the lowest common denominator--even non-readers. Poets who may be competent, striving not for craft or quality, but to be democratic.

In actuality, striving to join the media-hype and glitz of “Hullyrud” and get more attention than is usual for poets. If you can’t beat the vacuity of the electronic culture, then join it, seems to be their aim.

Why work in the lonely pursuit of individual authenticity, significance and the interior life when a pop poet can show off where action and pandemonium is? In fact, can imitate the popular? Why it deserves copying is a mystery to me. But it’s not a mystery that such imitation offers: a product amusingly packaged; a quick, easy word-fix; not much substance; no nutrition; something ultimately disposable and inane.

NAN HUNT

Woodland Hills