Review of Book on New Formalism
 

The LA Times Review of Books has run a review of William Baer's "A Negative Freedom"--a book of interviews with thirteen New Formalists: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/...-formal-verse/

What do you think?

An ecumenical review of what sounds like an ecumenical book. Very boring.

But then again, pretty much everything non-ecumenical written about the free vs. formal verse debate is outrageously stupid. Some of the stuff in The Poetics of the New American Poetry is okay, but only because it's in response to outrageous things said by the formalist rearguard of the time. And if you drop this excuse and simply take it at face value, what the poets in that book say about form in poetry is... outrageously stupid.

So, boring or stupid—those seem to be the choices, if we insist on having this debate.

I suspected Spherians might be uncomfortable talking about this book and review. Is it just me, or does the book (along with the review) come off as retrospective? Even before the collapse of the West Chester conference, I had wondered what had become of the New Formalist movement. Is New Formalism dead?

If so, some post-defeat analysis is in order.

Post-defeat analysis! I've had many of those discussions. Usually different folks explain their (bad) decision-making process, people try to pinpoint what went wrong, there's a bit of finger-pointing and mea culpa (mea maxima culpa), and others say what are we going to do different next time around. Mood is a big factor; defeat creates that. But defeat implies a good deal, starting with an adversary. On the field, your adversary has volition.
Generally there is a next time, unless it's the end of the tournament (or war). Sometimes though it's hard to say there really was a combat, and defeat becomes amorphous as well. Yoko Ono made an all-white chessboard on which players played until they could no longer tell who had which pieces.

Cheers,
John

Well, I wrote THIS PIECE when the West Chester Conference (which has proven perhaps more resilient than some would have it) was under original management. I'd probably move some things around a bit were I to re-write the thing, and jeez, that last paragraph has to go. It's not nearly bombastic or sectarian enough. (If you think I'm joking--think again.)

But from what I can tell, Baer essentially bundled some interviews he did over the years. It's Baer, so it skews male and white and... along the lines of what he published in The Formalist. Big whup.

The second article is probably less dull than the first, which does seem rather insipid. Quincy, I like your discussion of The Canon Poem, and your conclusion in particular, calling for "a larger proportion of work from outside the United States and its incessant and tedious Poetry Wars".

Cheers,
John

We’re not still fighting ‘poetry wars’, are we? Isn’t this like the people who dress up in knickers and ascots and fire blanks from muskets on the 4th of July? I can't help but find it a bit comical.

To frame the discussion some, I will present these books as "bookends" to the movement:

The Rebel Angels anthology (1996):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_..._New_Formalism

Baer's "A Negative Freedom" (2017).

The question of "New Formalism" seems to me to divide into two parts:

1. An aesthetic justification and active practice of metrical/rhymed verse without necessarily being a C.H.U.D. about it. Mission accomplished. If "New Formalism" had its share of missteps, turkeys, etc., and a whole, whole lot of mediocre verse, well, so have lots of movements. The point is, there is a far greater acknowledgment in the U.S. that one can viably do metrical verse that is contemporary and not forced than, say, twenty-five years ago, or even when I started submitting around a dozen years ago.

2. Academic politics. Here's where it matters. In which direction does the MFA program at Ivy League State want to go? Do they want another "experimental" poet? A "formalist"? And so on. It becomes a matter of branding, as well as a matter of cheap polemic to define one's continued relevance. Kick around the UPenn poetry web site to see what I mean. Langpo is old enough to drive, vote, drink, and have a receding hair line, but it still needs to periodically justify the "avant-garde" reputation it has accrued. So there will be periodic attacks on the form crowd, who may more may not hit back. Does any of this help American poetry? Not especially. Does it keep a few careers going? Certainly.

I have the book on order. It is a collection of interviews Baer did over the years. I'm sure I said some perfectly stupid things in mine, as does almost everyone. I'd never heard of the reviewer, who lives in Houston and has a blog. It's kind of late in the day for manifestos, isn't it?

It strikes me that Quincy is right. Whatever the failings of the New Formalists, they helped to bring form more to the forefront. Mainstream writers like Natasha Trethewey and Michael Robbins both make regular use of meter and rhyme.

The Rebel Angels bit always struck me as comical. There's nothing rebellious in what they were doing, and trying to characterize themselves as such always struck me as silly rhetorical decision; they merely refused to abandon two tools in the poet's toolbox. Some of them took other tools out. I came across some writers I'm glad I did in that collection (Emily Grosholz, Sam Gwynn, Charles Martin) but I found most of it mediocre. Often well executed, mind you, just not my cup of tea.

I would not be surprised if more than a few Spherians have already read this, but here is a short piece by A.E. Stallings of relevance Why No One Wants to be a New Formalist.

I don't have access to my books right now, so I can't quote, but the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (which everyone should own) calls New Formalism more a marketing strategy than an actual movement. That definition seems astute and not, as some readers may find it, damning. Movements as they decompose tend to trap the artists associated with them.

I will take this time to remind everyone of this great and hilarious poster created when Rick Mullin and I did a reading at the very-much-not-formalist Son of a Pony reading series. "Cutting Edge Neo-Formalists"!!!:

http://threeroomspress.blogspot.com/...oets-rick.html

I'm actually a fan of the reviewer, Patrick Kurp, who writes a thoughtful blog called Evidence Anecdotal.

To argue about free verse versus form in poetry makes little sense to me. It won't get people who like writing in form to stop doing so, and it won't get free verse writers to change their practice or their opinions. To ask people who write in form to discuss their practices makes more sense, because there is a group of writers who like form and who will be interested in hearing what the most respected writers in the field (or at least some of them) have to say about the matter. I haven't read Baer's interviews, but I may do so in the future. Kurp's statement that some writers have more interesting comments than others is no surprise to me. The best argument for the utility of writing in form is to write a good poem in form. I would rather spend my time trying to do that than arguing about the advantages of form.

Susan

I think that's well said, Susan. I'm in the 'write a good poem' camp.

Personally, I DID have big hopes for New Formalism and I still hope that rhyme and meter are back to stay, if only in their little niche. But I've given up the hope I long cherished of one day seeing an all-formalist issue of POETRY, or "taking poetry back" for the English tradition...

Aaron, this is hysterical, and something I had not known about, before. I developed in isolation, outside New Formalism, and this event probably preceded my introduction to it. Thanks for the laugh this early in the day. And bravo, on the win at Poets Respond. It's a fine poem.

Jennifer

Thank you very much, Jennifer. And congrats on your poem in Poets Respond: https://www.rattle.com/tag/jennifer-reeser/

There should be a collection of memoirs of the West Chester Conference. I would love to read the experiences of others there.

I never had any experiences there. I had one episode and 1/3 to 1/2 of an occurrence. I had a pretty good time most of the time. I can't speak for anyone else except myself.

Yes, Sam, I imagine the conference was enjoyable if one was on the faculty.

This is really sweet of you, Aaron, and much appreciated.

Jennifer

Yes, Aaron, being on the faculty was fun--six hours of teaching and up to ten student conferences in three days. Dealing face to face with so much individual genius was indeed a humbling experience, and the way that attendees were able to subordinate their egos to the greater goal of learning and sharing was a joy.

Good, good, Sam. Let's get it all out. That's what I wanted for this thread.

After many years of attending and participating in academic conferences, I quickly decided that West Chester was my favorite ever. I met so many wonderful poets, both faculty and students, and learned so much from the in-depth discussions of writing in form, that I can honestly say that my life was much enriched by it. Anyone can carp at individual aspects of any experience, but I prefer to look at the positives. If the conference is now likely to end, I will miss it very much. I would like to see it be able to continue, though I fear the direction it may take if a formalist is not in charge of directing it. One of the great strengths of the program was that it was designed by formalists for formalists, something that wasn't being done anywhere else. That made it worth a special trip, for me.

Susan

I was an eye and ear witness to several outbreaks of formalism there. Like ginger. Sam and Alicia and Josh won't remember them, but I was in the rooms.

There was a generation gap in rhymed-and-metered poetry when I came on the scene, and, as noted in my linked article, more than a bit of a whiff of conservatism, both aesthetic and political. What conferences like West Chester, as well as editors like Bill Baer did for me, at least, was to give me a foil to which I could relate way more than whatever ex-post-avant-something-or-other was in mainstream fashion at that particular moment. If "New Formalism" was in some ways something to define myself against, it was because it was at the same time close enough to what I was doing in many ways to make the juxtapositions meaningful. (And I've said more or less all of this into microphones in some form or other at West Chester. Sometimes even with Dana Gioia present.)

Allen, you've lost me. Ginger? There was a pretty good poet named Ginger whom Story Line published some years ago. I've lost track of her, but Keillor was a big fan. She came to West Chester once. Folks seem to be talking in riddles here. I think Susan has nailed what was valuable about West Chester. It was valuable for many. Good company.

Sorry, Sam, for being too aromatic. I am very fond of that glorious spice, which is, at times, lyrical for me. I meant no harm, especially seeing as how I was in your classroom, and Alicia's too. A phrase a bit over the top, I'm sure.

Ginger Andrews was the poet's name, not that it's relevant to the discussion.