Here's another angle from which to approach the issue: one of the more promising notions of Language poetry that I think many of us still hold as an underlying principle is the participation of the reader in the creation of a text's meaning. This notion, not unlike that of "student-centered learning" so recently in vogue in English departments, only functions in a productive way when students are actually motivated to learn. When reader-centered poetry is not actually read, the pleasures of this type of writing remain unrevealed, and there is no content to speak of. This is why I think reading is still so important to poetry, and to exploring some of what's pleasurable about what we're calling "post-avant writing" before it congeals into a hard mass.
Logically, it follows that if there are different kinds of poets (post-avant vs. quietude), there should also be different kinds of readers. Here are a few prototypes. Feel free to develop further your own terms that will endure.
Adidas Tracksuit: These readers refuse to interpret poems at all, and may actively go out of their way to not quote them. Their commentary about poetry is modeled on a hipster version of People magazine, in which names and linguistic high-fives are exchanged. This is a shout-out to my peeps.
Gonzo: Readers who actively get in the way of what they're writing about by inserting themselves into the narrative in various ways as a character. Phrases such as "and then it occurred to me that" or "by the time I got to this poem in the book, my brother Josh had just served the mashed potatoes with a smile that reminded me of life's enduring mania for change." Can be lively and interesting, or really annoying and dull.
Tinkertoy: Dogged, sometimes robotic readers who employ a system of terms they themselves have invented. While this comes out of a truly sincere desire to get to the bottom of things, it can inadvertently reveal the fact that these readers can lack a sense of humor, which can undermine their point. These readers rely heavily on some form of master-narrative or "system" which can be mapped onto everything else.
Blueblood-avant: These readers are thoughful about tracing origins and influence as a way of placing a "stamp of approval" on a text, but their analysis stops there. If they can discern the influence of X influential poet on the text at hand, that means they are dealing with "real poetry" and thus the package may pass them by on the conveyor belt, thoroughly ok'd.
Smurfitude: This reading aesthetic churns out sweet nothings and enthusiastic praise which evaporate upon completion, primarily because there has been no effort to synthesize form with content or to argue for anything in particular. This type of reader enjoys using phrases like "The Mind at Work" because they make him or her feel important.
Little Prince-itude: These readers, an example of which would be Joan Houlihan, innocently affect complete ignorance of what a poem is trying to accomplish, while actually employing this "general reader" innocence as a kind of weapon or crowbar. I know I am in the presence of one of these when I get to the sentence in the review which states "While some readers may find this poetry difficult or challenging," and I usually put the review down immediately.
Antic-Synthetic: A term which I just made up, like an invented drug brand name. These readers are passionate as well as intensely specific. Often critical of a Vasari-like approach which celebritizes the artist and conflates him with his work, they balance a sense of humor with eloquence and an ability to read locally and thoughtfully, discovering in the act of reading but showing that discovery rather than telling you about the fact they've had an insight. Common sense is an important part of their repertoire -- a suspicion with regard to totalizing systems. Thorough and reality-based, they are at the same time deliciously flamboyant and entertaining to read. Examples coming soon.