Roger,
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point here. Bearing in mind that McClatchy is the man who edited James Merrill, it's fairly ludicrous to paint him as someone who's against metrical poetry per se, or who thinks all poets writing in form are "supercilious" or whatever.
I think McClatchy's point is that the "New Formalism" is becoming like language poetry, hip-hop, la feministas, whatever, in that for the group the politics of the form is too often a larger isssue than the quality of the poem. He isn't dismissing the traditions of poetry, he is dismissing their use for a political purpose. to foster an atmosphere of "us vs. them".
The excerpt beginning this thread was very specific in its criticism of the "New Formalism", and is not directed against metrical poetry as an art form. He's talking about people he thinks have "perverted" the art, or twisted it to their own political ends.
IMO opinion McClatchy's piece, in toto is a trenchant and thought-provoking piece of criticism. And, for what it's worth, I can't stand the man's poetry.
(robt.)
|