I didn't see Quincy's deleted comment, but I never took his urging (in the first post in this thread) to be perfectly serious. And I do think it's an excellent idea for writers to reconsider whether villanelles and triolets actually need to be poems in those forms or not.
I will admit to often having been bored senseless by the staleness of exultation in longing by any poet. Speaking of lust and love in a poem is not as workable as many writers seem to think. More often than not it comes off puerile unless it's somehow very fresh and unusual.
Quincy has been a great boon to this board, and his so-called "vulgarity" makes me laugh more often than not. I don't believe in the existence of vulgar words any more than I believe human functions are vulgar. So we piss and shit, so what? I mean for heaven's sake, a bunch of you are in the Shit Creek Rvw and exult in it! If any wordsmiths can actually see a moral reason not to use certain words, I'd like to know what that is.
Quincy's insight can be both revealing and pithy at times: "The problem isn't that the form is hard per se but that it is of relatively narrow utility."
I certainly have never seen that stated before, and it's quite obviously true. In some ways writing a villanelle is too damn simple (that is, writing a mediocre one, as most are).
|