I'm not sure why, but I see a difference in what Daniel wrote and what Kent wrote. maybe my crit reading isn't apt, I dunno. Kent's work seems more mature in the registration of righteous anger. Kent's work is more focused in this usage. Daniel has written some decidedly lala poems (not to say I haven't, in case you wondered), one's in which ineffableness comes a-calling. if I could dig out his book I'd give examples, but I haven't time à ce moment. there's that point when writing is a tool, and that tool, so envisioned, always gets misused. if I have beliefs about poetry, they flutter around the idea that poetry acts to free itself (the language it entails) from such use. as much as I might believe, the words are on their own.