This article does about as much (or less) good as old men sitting on porches
and grumbling, "They don't make them cars as good as they used to, nosiree
Bob." Even if the world of American poetry were to be saved by a 180-degree
turn into formalism, I hardly believe that an article that basically states,
"Free verse sucks! All y'all unrhyming uncadenced sissies ain't no real
poets!" could really turn people onto exploring formal techniques. This
article has its point to make about trends in American poetry. Maybe if the
writer didn't spend noisy time skewering the trendsetters and bolstering
those who already agree with him, he could have contributed toward a
reevaluation of method by poets who swim in the mainstream.
-Amber
-----Original Message-----
From: kent johnson
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 7/7/2001 4:49 PM
Subject: invitation to Prospect writer?
I jsut read Lind's article with more care. I agree that his
reductiveness is
funny, and the conclusion, where he suggests that the mission of poetry
is
akin to that of popular music, is priceless. BUT... much of what he says
I
find perfectly accurate, at least as quick graph-- particularly his take
on
the academy and MFA programs-- his description of the dominant, scenic
poetic mode coming out of there since 70's (self-indulgent snap-shot
prose
scissored more or less arbitrarily into lines) quite to the point. And
some
of the discussion, like on the Agrarians, albeit very sketchy, is
interesting in the heuristic sense.
So I'm wondering more precisely what Candice and DAvid found
objectionable?
Might be interesting to lay some of that out-- maybe even, here's a
thought,
invite Lind to come aboard here for a discussion of his article? Will he
dare to eat a peach?
Kent
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|