[Golias]

My favorite rhyme by my favorite lady editor/poet

An anxious fire gesticulates
At six familiar, nicked blue plates,

from "Pinates" by Elizabeth McFarland.

G/W

[Jim Hayes]

Nice rhyme, however. in the non-American speaking word of English it would be commonly understood that Ms McFarland purloined the plates.

[John Whitworth]

Whe the Earl pulled out his bloody great tool at tea
To do the pageboy wrong,
His Chaplain cried in incredulity
'How long, oh Lord, how long!'

This is another winner from Robert Conquest, the greatest composer of limericks since Anon.Of course I am aware it is not a limerick. Wake up at the back there. I wouldn't have posted it if the tone had not been lowered irretrievably already. Ithink, though I am not sure, that this text, trawled from the internet, is slightly different from the one available in Kingsley Amis's Memoirs.We must hope the definitive version appears in Mr Conquest's latest book of poems. Incidentally, Robert Conquestis 93. Kirkpatrick Dobie published a book of poems at eighty-seven. Can anyone tell me of a more mature poet than either of these splendid men?

[A. E. Stallings]

A number of ancient poets lived and produced until an advanced age. Sophocles lived till 90, and wrote Oedipus at Colonus towards the end of his life.

[Lance Levens]

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).]

[Mark Allinson]

Quincy and Mark, you're both much more attuned to academia than I am

Lance, I am afraid that there is little in academia today with which I am in tune. And judging from Quincy’s recent statements, I think he feels (or is beginning to feel) something similar.

What has happened, as you will know, is that the arts faculties of the western world have been caught in a time-warp, keeping them locked within the “spirit of ‘68”, seething against the capitalist system (which supports them very nicely at the moment, thank you). And being committed to the revolutionary social-engineering program of that era, they march on. It has become a self-replicating culture now, and has all the blind tenacity of a religious movement. It IS a religious movement in fact.

Central to the revolutionary perspective of this secular religion is the Lockean/Marxist/Rousseauist principle of the tabula rasa, the “blank slate” view that the human being is the one animal upon the earth somehow magically absolved from all “essential” or in-born traits. All that we are is seen to be a product of social conditioning alone. Thus the “noble savage” principle from Rousseau, that human beings are ONLY evil as a result of social evil – correct the injustices of society and you will have perfect people. And this dove-tails with Marx’s principle that social conditions alone produce consciousness.

This fantasy is, of course, marvellously attractive to the dislocated intellectual mind, giving it an opportunity to get one up on Mother Nature (the arch enemy), which is seen as just another idea to be manipulated for social ends. And ONLY dissociated intellectuals are capable of believing such a bizarre fantasy. Here, for instance, is a list of a few hundred <A HREF="http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm" TARGET=_blank>
“human universals”</A> , common to all known cultures on the planet. Without an intrinsic “essential” origin in human biology, such correlations can only be considered as amazing and inexplicable coincidences.

Here is my point. Being opposed to “essentialism” (a necessary opposition, since re-writing social scripts requires a blank slate), then ALL TYPES OF REPEATING PATTERNS will look like the products of some “essentialist” program. Metrical forms will appear as a sort of literary “instinct” – and the use of such patterns will be seen as an implicit statement of support for other “essential” recurring patterns. Instinct, inheritance, tradition – all of these are vilified as ideas to be overcome.

As I have argued on these threads before, this psychology is a modern expression of Gnostic dualism – only today, in this secular form, Nature is not merely traduced and rejected, but outright denied any “essential” reality at all. Nature is just another “essentially empty” social construct. This is a religion of the masculine “spiritual” mind, aspiring to total victory over mother nature.

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.

Also, another factor enters the equation. The past. All of our metrical inheritance comes from “the past”, a realm of systematic sexism, racism and colonialism. This also taints metrical poetry with an aura of corruption. The past is the realm of error, and must not be celebrated in any way. History is a cess-pit of social horrors, only to be used to demonstrate error, and any product of the past (like tradition) must be corrupt.

This is the psychology and philosophy behind Sadoff’s rejection of form. And it must be particularly galling for those who are on this side of politics AND who write in proscribed formal patterns. How they can square this regressive tendency in their art with the derision of their tradition-hating, progressive colleagues is a mystery to me.

[Mark Allinson]

Just a footnote to the above.

I was just watching a documentary on the famous architect, David Libeskind, who is currently working on the WTC site.

One of the commentators was saying that it is Libeskind’s sense of history, of the past and of tradition, that gives his work such power. His is a modern style, but solidly grounded in tradition.

Many modern architects (he added) wanted a complete break with the past (as is general in the academy today) and this makes their works ephemeral, insubstantial and quickly dated.

The same principle, I would argue, applies to all the arts.

Especially to poetry.