[F.F. Teague]

Hi everyone,

Many thanks for taking the time to read and comment :-)


Maryann, many thanks for your response. Yes, I've been doing a bit more googling and I've noticed that some people are talking about 'New Formalism' in past tense. Thanks for explaining Stallings' meaning.

I like to write all sorts of things, but I'm at my happiest when writing in form. Thanks for mentioning The Dark Horse and PN Review; I'll take a look at these.

It's good to know that journals aren't turning up their noses at metre and rhyme; congrats on being published! Yes, this is all very useful; thank you.

- - -
Hi Julie. Thanks for these thoughts; I hadn't heard of Burgundy.

The differences Clive Simpson discerns between American and British attitudes to free verse and formal verse are interesting. On poetry forums (non-workshop sites) I've encountered hostility from a few Brits due to my interest in formal verse, but when I posted formal verse as an elderly man no one was bothered, lol.

I like the quote from MA Griffiths too. It might just inspire the title for my proposed poetry blog, not that I know what I'm doing with that yet. Thanks, Julie.

- - -
Hi Cameron; thanks for your comment. I'll have to go googling the movement you mention. Yes, my overall impression is that it's less of a hot topic in the UK.

I understand your poetry preferences and I'm interested in what you write about the lack of modernist formalism. I don't know much about surrealism etc., but I am intrigued. Thanks, Cameron.

- - -
Hi Chris; good to know that Stallings is serving on wry, lol.

Yes, I see what you mean about 'no membership card'. I really like Ann Drysdale's poetry (I still remember her 'Wool Away!' from a few years ago) and I had something of a poetry-crush on the late great John Whitworth, lol. I think it started when he posted a simple and charming poem about Autumn on the 'sphere.

I like e.e. too :-)

- - -
Hi Clive; yes, everything Maryann says makes sense to me. As I mention to Julie, it's possible that the hostility I've experienced elsewhere for my interest in formal verse has led me to wonder whether there's a general problem.

Your description of how you write is interesting. I was discussing this with a poetry-friend recently and I explained that often, even if I've set out to write in free verse, the beat in my head takes over and the words start to dance. Thanks for your comment, Clive.

- - -
Yes, John; I like it too :-)

- - -
That's interesting, RM. I'm very interested in art alongside poetry and music. This sort of thing might be my ultimate aim, lol. Yes, the more I research it the more I get the impression that New Formalism was a reaction that subsided in time; thank you.

- - -
Hi Bill; thanks for mentioning the anthology, which I shall try to find. The title is significant, I think. If I ran a publishing company, I'd love to bring out an anthology :-)

- - -
Julie, sorry, I have to go and take my meds now, but I'll be back tomorrow feeling brighter (hopefully!) and I'll be able to take a proper look at your second comment.


Thanks again,
Fliss

[John Riley]

The entire argument is silly and has been from the beginning. To know there are people who say you couldn't write in a form in the 1950's, before Lowell's "Life Studies," and well in the era of James Tate and John Crowe Ransom and Dylan Thomas and W. H. Auden, and to say you couldn't paint portraits or realism when Edward Hopper and Thomas Hart Benton were all the rage, is to realize how ridiculous it all is. Contemporary poetry is so dull and dilapidated not because of its form or lack of form but because of its self-centeredness and inability to even attempt to reach beyond temporality. Right now poetry that is successful in terms of where it's published is an extension of culture wars and political arguments--and not just from the left. Go to New Criterion and read the silly reviews if you think it is. It isn't surprising there is so much superficiality in arguing about form vs. non-form. It is just another example of the superficiality that has frozen and calcified everything, not just the arts. It would be nice, though, if the arguments could move on to something else.

[Allen Tice]

Originally Posted by Rick Mullin

My take: Way back, let's say in the 1950s, one was not allowed to paint representational or figurative pictures. One could not write in form....

As one of the essential nuisance people around here, I'd like to add that what Rick said was so true, and that the (ahem) non-figurative visual crapola that was extremely heavily promoted to the point of being the only Politically Correct visual art style then and for too long later (I would even include Warhol's emptiness) was a Cold War phenomenon engineered by our own US spy agencies as a contrast to socialist realism.

Like so much that has been engineered that way then and up to now, it is chiefly decadent crap belched out to fulfill a political agenda. Political Correctness in this post medieval style is nothing new; it just got stinkingly oppressive since WW II. It all reminds me of the natural decadence of classical visual art that set in maybe in the second or third century, and that shows up on coinage and elsewhere. It's just that this isn't "natural", as that was, it's been intentional. Artists are peons, prize pigs, idiots to be squeezed and invisibly induced to do this or that for some short term (one hopes) agenda that has been decreed to accomplish some tactical objective by people that few artists could respect.

Add to that the amped-up effects of ever louder advertising, and one wonders why one should even try to see clearly or write sensibly except to stay out of politics as much as possible. Yeah, politics is Sooo important. No thanks.

[RCL]

Sonnet? On It!

I sat down to write a sonnet
but critics put a kibosh on it,
called them the lazy poets’ outlet,
wondered why they fail to fret

and have ignored a richer set
of basic forms that should beget
some greater challenges. They bet
if formalists would rise and get

focused on the heroic couplet
or tried the tinkling tiny triplet,
perhaps a villanelle with wit,
they’d challenge the smart critic’s crit.

So bards, with foreheads clenched a bit,
vow not to write another sonnet!





OOPS! This is illegal, please, oh shit,
blame it on the narcissistic poet's sonnet!

[Michael Cantor]

It's not only illegal, it's awful. Instead of apologizing, and leaving it up there, why don't you simply replace it with a "Posted in error". Even "Mind your own business, Michael" (I believe you've used that before - on multiple occasions) would be better. Or start a thread on bad poems on poetry in Drills and Amusements, and I'll be glad to match you.

[F.F. Teague]

Back again, back again :-) :>)


Julie, thanks for these further thoughts.

Yes, one may make a distinction between amateur and professional poets.

Perhaps the sonnet will always be considered the highest form of poetry because of Shakespeare. Yes, dethroning it is probably a pipe dream.

I can't comment on narcissists with persecution complexes because I don't know any such persons. As I mentioned earlier, I have encountered hostility from poets favouring free verse, but as they were amateurs they needn't be heeded; and I dare say you'd consider my thoughts on the matter of no relevance in any case, lol.

I've only ever submitted two poems: (1) to the pleasant George Simmers at Snakeskin, after it received almost entirely positive feedback on the 'sphere; and (2) to The Spectator for the latest competition (probably rubbish, but fun to have a go).

- - -
Thanks, John; I find your comment very insightful. I don't enjoy arguments, so I'm always happy to move on, lol.

- - -
Allen, thanks for your comments. I like 'prize pigs' especially. Politics fills me with despair.

- - -
Ralph, lol. I doubt Julie considers you a narcissist. Thanks v. much for your sonnet and 'bonus material' at the end :-)

- - -
Michael, a thread on D&A sounds like a good idea.


Of course anyone venturing to D&A is welcome to post on the prompt threads I'm hosting at the mo. One's about planets and the other's about music. You'll be in good company, as Martin Elster and other professional poets have been making some excellent contributions :-)

Best wishes,
Fliss

[F.F. Teague]

Just a quick update, to say that I searched for M.A. 'Maz' Griffiths online and I'm enjoying my findings. On this blog, she's described as possibly the greatest early twenty-first-century poet. I love her 'Opening a jar of Dead Sea Mud', which won a prize on the 'sphere.

[mignon ledgard]

Originally Posted by F.F. Teague

Just a quick update, to say that I searched for M.A. 'Maz' Griffiths online and I'm enjoying my findings. On this blog, she's described as possibly the greatest early twenty-first-century poet. I love her 'Opening a jar of Dead Sea Mud', which won a prize on the 'sphere.

Dear Fliss,

Thank you for the link to a terrific sonnet by Griffiths. I added it to my favs.

~mignon

[W T Clark]

About three quarters of a year ago, I read a lot of Griffiths' poetry, especially since I had encountered another blog claiming that she was the greatest poet of the twenty-first century. Is she? In my opinion, not quite, but she came close on occasion. A lot of people like "Opening a Jar" because of its formal ingenuity and clever structuring. (Someone once remarked that it was quite self-pitying; and I can see their point, although I don't personally stand by it.) For me, "Studying Savonarola" is probably her greatest poem. She approaches a height of language in that which she doesn't quite reach in others, imo. Oh, and she was a brilliant and witty critic.

Here is a blog with a lot of her poetry:
http://margaret-griffiths-tribute.bl...hs-poetry.html

[F.F. Teague]

You're welcome, mignon; I'm glad you like it too :-)

That's interesting, Cameron. I like 'Opening a jar' for its smells, colours, other little details, and fluency. I don't find it self-pitying either. I'll take a look at 'Studying Savonarola'. Thanks very much for the link to the blog.

Best wishes,
Fliss