Interesting post. I started, not as a poet, but as a prose writer - short stories - and from the time I was nineteen until into my sixties, that was what I (unsuccessfully) wrote. As time went on, I became more and more obsessed with the sound of each sentence, with the manner in which the sentences played off each other, with perfecting internal rhythm and polishing the perfect paragraph. Such fiction considerations as plot and character were secondary. And a surprising number of my "perfect" sentences were also perfectly iambic.
I wrote more and more, completed less and less, and it finally dawned on me that what I was doing was trying to write poetry. I made an honest man of myself, and have never been happier. At the same time, when I do go back to prose now, I find that if flows more readily. I still have trouble with plot, but maybe in five more years I can marry the two more successfully.
Yes, I feel there is definitely a place for rhythm and cadence in prose, and have always been attracted to writers - Hemingway is a prime example, and Faulkner another, and Carson McCullers and William Humphrey (Home from the Hill), and the young Truman Capote of Tree of Night and Other Voices, Other Rooms - who have that beauty intrinsic in their language.
Another extraordinarily poetical novelist, in a more lyrical sense (and a favorite of Tim's as well, I believe) is Cormac McCarthy. And Peter Matthiesson has written a few novels (Dry Tortugas is one) that, if anything, struck me as trying too hard to blend prose and poetry.
So, yes - a screaming yes! Not only do I think there is room for rhythm and cadence in prose, but I feel that the introduction of poetic tools can make for the very best prose, can elevate good fiction to a higher level.
Michael Cantor
[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited May 24, 2005).]
|