What went wrong?

>>9468277
That cover, for starters.

>>9468280
What don't you like about it?

>>9468381
It's over-designed and convoluted. The throwback style seems approximative at best, It tries so hard to look neat but ends up boring and unappealing.

>>9468407
And you're aware it was published in 1950?

What about what's inside?

>>9468414
I have never heard of this book or its author, I was merely reacting to this cover. I doubt it is the original cover art, it looks so much like some contemporary shit designer's idea of the aesthetics of an imagined 1950s. I might be wrong, though. Anyway, I don't think it looks good. What's the book about, anon?

>>9468433
It was published like that as a pamphlet originally in 1950. Anyway, I don't think it looks great either.

It's a poetic manifesto essentially. Hard to explain; check it out for yourself.

http://writing.upenn.edu/~taransky/Projective_Verse.pdf

>>9468493
Thanks, I'll check it out.

Read this, homos

Huh, seems like an interesting idea of what poetry can be. Why don't you like this, OP?

even trying to make text accurately convey speech
just give up and work in your actual medium, or be an oral poet

>>9471009
I think Olson was more of a teacher/muse than a poet (he would disagree). People who took his classes at Black Mountain just came away amazed and inspired. Archaeologist of Morning is some damned good stuff, though.

>>9468277
does this have the full text?

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/resources/learning/essays/detail/69406

>>9472620
Yes, but I would recommend reading it from the PDF posted in >>9468493 this post.

>>9472517
He isn't a great poet, no, but some of his work is amazing. Definitely a more interesting poetic theorist than poet. The idea of the breath is endlessly influential.

A little known fact: Olson coined the term "postmodern" in a letter to Robert Creeley.