Quincy, David, Mark, Maryann et al. on the Sadoff article. Sorry to be so late on this old article, but I had never read it and it caught my fancy.
First, Mr. Sadoff dislikes priviledging meter. For an authority he quotes Cleanth Brooks, who apparently once called meter "decorative." I'm amazed that Mr. Sadoff has the courage to quote arch-essentialist Brooks. I would also like to see the context there.
Second, he fears Neo-Formalists may turn out to be Essentialists. That means it's possible that a Neo Formalist believes some proposition with consequences, more, say, than your preference for Ben and Jerry's Snickerdoodle. I apologize for being flippant, but I do think it's a bit tendentious to dismiss poets who prefer meter on the grounds that they might be a practicing Jew or Muslim. Or course those aren't the essentialists he's worried about, are they?
Third, apparently, Neo Formalists are lonely; therefore, they write in iambic pentameter. Someone else will have to build the bridge to connect the two sides of the creek on that one. It's beyond me.
That's pretty much the heart of the article. There's lots of aren't-you-impressed-with-this-citation-and-that-poet, but the sum of it is: meter is a minor embellishment; Neo Formalists are closet Baptists or Orthodox Jews; they're also lonely and therefore prey to exotic notions e.g. meter is the backbone of English poetry from Beowulf to T S Elliot.
The first two claims can be conflated into a a general dislike of Essentialism. Let's assume for argument's sake that there is a Neo Formalist out there who is an essentialist--e.g.yours truly. What is it exactly that Mr. Sadoff doesn't like? Essentialists, obviously, should not have a place at Mr. Sadoff's ideal poetry table. I believe he is greatly distressed by this possibility.
Again, let's be sure we understand what we mean by Essentialist. He doesn't make clear whether he means a Social Essentialist i.e. those persons who believe you are born with a sexual, ethnic, racial identity or nature (as opposed to someone who believes you construct such an identity) or a Philosophical Essentialist i.e. someone who believes there are permanent, unchanging values (as opposed to someone who believes values are molded as the need arises). Either one seems to bother Mr. Sadoff. There are other contexts where the term Essentialist may be applicable, but I think these two cover the ground for Mr. Sadoff.
For some reason Mr. Sadoff thinks that Essentialists of
either stripe will lead the poetic community into a
uncomfortable mental space. I believe he is correct. The difference between us is he thinks discomfort is bad; whereas, I think it's good. I think it's healthy to be challenged, to be called out and to debate. I don't know why that should be a cause for alarm.
Is it possible that Mr. Sadoff is making huge logical leaps here, indeed, mildly paranoid leaps? Is he afraid the hard won social victories of the latter half of the 20th century may be challenged if a few Neo Formalist poets and teachers should gain the upper hand in MFA programs around the country? If there are young Neo Formailsts out there who are reading Richard Wilbur and Alicia Stallings and Gertrude Schnakenburg and memorizing their lines--because they are memorable and not forgettable as are most free verse lines--is that so threatening? Will that mean society will
revert to white and colored signs in stores and women will be sent back to the kitchen? No, clearly not. Neo Formailists are as different as snowflakes. Mr. Sadoff confuses formal with conservative.
In sum: I would have preferred that Mr. Sadoff demonstrate more overtly a knowledge of English prosody, which I would maintain is a sine qua non if his the man's purpose is to demonstrate it has long since proven itself to be a minor, back water bayou on the American poetic landscape. To be cynical, I suspect he couldn't scan a Shakespearian sonnet.
Quincy and Mark, you're both much more attuned to academia than I am, but I don't hear the subtler music. I think Mr. Sadoff wants us to BELIEVE there is a subtler music. He drops all the right buzz words, but to me the argument isn't strong. What's your take?
Harsh words: Mr. Sadoff has lived a literary life reading, critiquing and associating with men and women who, by virtue of their a priori rejection of the central place of meter in English poetry, cut themselves off with one blow from the well-springs of American and British literature. How sad! How often have we heard on these boards how Donne or Marvell or Hopkins or Elliot has inspired a poem? Of course, free verse poets may MAKE the same claim, but are the cases similar when the poet you are drawing inspiration from isn't writing in the same sonic pattern you're writing in? Mr. Sadoff's response to the Richman anthology is predictable, after all, how many years did it take any poet on these boards to master meter--not to mention forging interesting and provocative ideas out of it in a contemporary idiom?
It's sad, isn't it? If you are one of the lucky ones who has struggled with meter, fought it, cursed at it, thrown it on the ground and stamped on it, and come to realize how much more can be expressed by it and how profound the addage is that order in words is rooted first in sound, there is much cause for rejoicing. For Mr. Sadoff, this is not the case.
Heated replies expected.
Best
Lance Levens
[This message has been edited by Lance Levens (edited May 10, 2008).]
|
Threaded Mode
