Yes, Oliver, it is a very interesting observation.
If, indeed, modern prose has stolen all the vitality of expression once the exclusive property of verse, then what is left for verse to do that prose can't?
Maybe the answer lies in the direction of the conscious, "artificial" texturing of language, an intentional "poetic" mode of speech. Perhaps not as extreme as Euphuism, but in that direction; poetry as a more formal "artful" dance of language, if prose has taken over all the vital, compressed jitterbugging.
If the power of direct, natural speech in poetry has been usurped by that of modern prose, why should we continue to insist that only such "naturalism" in our poetry is viable? Maybe we need a bit more "artifice" in our expression. Why bother competing for the same territory, when people obviously prefer the contemporary prose form? Naturalism, spontaneity, compression, vitality - if prose now does them better, perhaps we should find something to do that prose can't?
------------------
Mark Allinson
|