The problem is, there is no term for people who write in meter these days but who are not "New Formalists" in the sense of having an ax to grind or being disapproving of non-formalists or trying to "restore" poetry as it was written in days gone by. When people condemn "New Formalists," I think they are (wittingly or unwittingly) aligning themselves with those who think that rhyme and meter are a dead letter, necessarily retrogressive or reactionary.
Anyway, to speak of "they" who write formal poetry and to say that "their practice is rarely above second-rate," seems both unfair and unuseful. His "rarely" allows for exceptions, like Merrill, but who are the "they" he is condemning en masse, and what of the implication that it cannot be said of people who write the way McClatchy likes (neither LANGUAGE nor New Formal) that "their practice is rarely above second-rate"?
It should be obvious, even to McClatchy, that most poetry written in any form, from formal to free to LANGUAGE to you name it, is second-rate. So are most novels. So are most songs. So are most paintings. So are most sculptures. So are most actors. What does McClatchy mean to be saying, therefore, when he singles out New Formalism by claiming that most of the poems produced in its name are second-rate? I'm serious. What is his point? That formalists should write better? That formalism is empty and arid and should be avoided henceforth? That formalism is no different from any other kind of poetry or art form? That true art is hard to make in any style?
I suspect that this single paragraph doesn't express all of McClatchy's attitudes on the subject, but to me it shows that he had at least a moment of less-than-stellar thinking and insight.
|