Tackily following up the KSM-verbatim post with one today by Jonathan Mayhew that speaks to me similarly:
There's an interesting fault-line between poets who see technique and craft as essential and those who get impatient with that. In Creeley's letter to Rothenberg on the deep he expresses a certain impatience with those who write off the engagement of the poet with the language itself. Creeley says it's not the time to do away with the technical innovations of O'Hara, Creeley himself, Williams, Ginsberg--at exactly the time when Bly was proposing to do just that.
A lot of poets who don't believe in engagement with language end up not going as far as they might have. At some point they come up against a set of serious limitations.
I think this fault-line is more significant than the avant/quietude one.
My comment at Jonathan's: Hear, hear. And, for me, a quietude poem/poet that interestingly engages with language can be more welcome than an avant one that does not, never mind my usual bent. I think there has been a widespread assumption that avant poems by default "engage with language"--no, no, no they don't.