Atthe end of his critique of Duffy's poem, David says:
<<I know that a sophistry could be presented against my views on the language:
that the 'maid' would think in such language and thus it is justified
however I feel the presentation of the poem does not admit of such an
argument, what comes across to me is a very poor piece of erotic fantasy
couched in the trappings of an outdated social order.>>
And perhaps I will be using sophistry here, but it seems to me, as also in
a poem like 'Female Nude,' that Duffy (whether successfully or not is up to
each reader) IS deliberately evoking a past, perhaps even a past only found
in such nostalgic fantasies as Larkin's '1914'. To suggest, I would say,
some of the underground feeolings, possibilities, etc that existed then
too. As to whether or not it's 'a very poor piece of erotic fantasy,', as
Liz seems to suggest, that depends on who's reading, i guess. My point is
that Duffy does, often (at least in my limited reading), evoke various past
periods in some of her poetry. The fifties, Edwardian times, etc.
I'm not overwhelmed by her work, but I have, recently, found some of it
provocative & even laugh out loud nastily funny.
As to Chris's questions, it's a hard thing to respond to. I do think that
even what appears to be the most 'open' poems are 'formal' in some way, &
this includes his own work. When the term 'formalism' is restricted to
'conventional forms' as some of the 'neo-formalists' seem to wish to do, I
just think it is dead wrong.
But, Vhris, if you wants to avoid form altogether, I'm not sure you can
write at all. I'm pretty sure that I would find form, of various kinds &
qualities, in the anthology you helped to edit.
Doug
Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
(h) [780] 436 3320 (b) [780] 492 0521
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
the way of what fell
the lies
like the petals
falling drop
delicately
Phyllis Webb
|