First, to Ralph and eaf: a hearty thank you for the suggested reading. The New York Public Library has the Phillips book, and I will try to pick that up later today. Your courteous responses are much appreciated.
Second, for Richard Wilbur via Tim and Alan:
In an interview with Peter Davison of The Atlantic Monthly (September 9, 1999), you stated:
It pleases me always to endanger whatever form I'm working in. I've written very few sonnets, but when I work in the sonnet, I try to threaten the form, expressively, in the way that my hero John Milton always did. Milton's sonnets freely overrun the tidy divisions of the sonnet form for expressive purposes, and therefore if his poems are "perfect," they're not perfect in the sense of being neat. They're perfect in the sense of treating the form in such a way as at all times to put it at the service of the meaning.
In what ways do you believe form is elastic and/or able to be manipulated? How far do think you can endanger or threaten a form before it becomes something else? Could you elaborate on the interplay between form and meaning?
In a related question, what do you think of the American dichotomy and hostility between practioners of formal and/or metrical verse and those who write free verse? How would you suggest these camps be brought together--or should they remain separate?
Thank you.
|