That's not how I read Julie's comments at all. She said "my quibble isn't with the attitude per se, but with whether it's been made new enough in this poem to feel like a fresh variation on an old theme. In my opinion, at least, the archaisms don't help in that regard."
So the criticism, with which I agree, is that the choice to use archaism in combination with an old, familiar theme keeps the poem from seeming fresh and new. Do you only want granular comments, like the that/which issue, but feel that reacting to the overall tone and voice is somehow unfair or wrong?
I think poets should write in their own language. There's something that is fundamentally false and untrue and awkward about rejecting your own language and adopting one that you and your readers never learned to speak and have no fluency in whatsoever. I inevitably get the feeling that the poet lacks the confidence and craft to use modern language effectively in a poem, and uses archaism as a talisman to ward off other types of criticism. But it seems obvious to me that when you try to write a poem with language as spoken hundreds of years ago, you are consciously putting a distance between you and the reader and are providing no real motivation for the reader to traverse that distance or even meet you half way.
|