Dear Bob,
 I hope you don't mind me piggybacking on your comment. The question of
using 'old-fashioned' language is one that often comes up on the formal
boards I use. The trouble is that a lot of people think a sort of
cod-Elizabethan is the right voice for a sonnet.
I confess I prefer a poet to use a contemporary voice, unless, of course,
the 'archaic' tone serves a definite purpose - other than sounding 'quaint',
as if 'quaint=poetic'
I'm sure Sally doesn't share this view, and feels there is more
justification for using old-fashioned phrasing. As she says, she, as author,
can write how she chooses, but the reader can, of course, respond as the
poem strikes him/her.
Personally, unless a poem is set in the past, or about some subject
contemporary to the voice chosen, I think it is very difficult to avoid the
impression that the poet is using a special Poetickal voice, which can be
very off-putting.
If we don't assume an 'antique' voice to express ourselves when writing
prose, why should we do so when writing poetry?
Kind regards,
    grasshopper


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Cooper" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [THE-WORKS] Shore Gooseberries ; Christina's objection


Hi Sally,

You write: "So it's about styles...and again, I'm not trying to defend
myself or this poem, I'm talking about why (if its the case) a poet who uses
old fashioned systems is doing something intrinsically odd and why it cannot
be considered (if it can't) "living language" in Christina's term."

I guess I believe that poetry should belong to today - so I'm wary of using
images, or phrases, that might turn the reader away from how language is
used today to start thinking, "that sounds 18th Century or 19th Century," or
whatever century!
To give an example: a few years ago, I compared a moon, in an early draft of
a poem, to a schooner in full sail. But it was pointed out that few people
had ever seen a schooner in real life - so I altered my line to show the
moon as an oil rig! (Oil Rigs belonged in local shipyards at the time.). I
guess I understand Ezra Pound's dictum "Make It New" to include poems
belonging to a world where people recognize where they are. I guess I'm also
thinking that there are no special words that are only found in poems - we
steal our words from other vocabularies.

Was Pound offering a rule? I think he was offering good advice! But he also
evoked things from well back in history! I guess the question is: When we
read your poem do we find the 21st Century seashore, or an early 19th
Century seashore? Are the links to the past stronger than the links to the
present?

I'm saying this because you wrote: "I defend the right of a poet to enjoy
language in any way he or she pleases, and I also believe we get nowhere in
poetry by obeying a set of rules." I admire your rebellious spirit! But.
aren't you just swapping the rules? Just creating a poem that's following
19th century rules?

So, to get round the issue, what would happen if a poem blended (just) one
or two of the recognisable features of a previous century and some of the
features of contemporary conventions or - as you phrase it - writing
systems, or styles? (I think that's probably the [only] way to actually
break the rules!).

Bob



>From: Sally Evans <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Shore Gooseberries ; Christina's objection
>Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:10:45 +0100
>
>Hi Bob, yes I was trying to widen out this discussion...
>none of these words is actually obsolete as a word.
>
>So it's about styles...and again, I'm not trying to defend myself or this
>poem, I'm talking about why (if its the case) a poet who uses old fashioned
>systems is doing something intrinsically odd and why it cannot be
>considered
>(if it can't) "living language" in Christina's term. If we look at the
>'lone
>gooseberry tree' line, I am actually not inverting, but saying the l.g.
>tree
><which  those golden globes adorn> is 'guards the path...'
>But I agree it does sound like inversion particularly as I dropped the
>article 'the' in front of l.g.tree.
>
>I think it may be the apparent inversion which got Christina's goat. Anyway
>I defend the right of a poet to enjoy language in any way he or she
>pleases,
>and I also believe we get nowhere in poetry by obeying a set of rules.
>Rules
>describe what poets do, just as language dictionaries describe how
>people speak.
>
>Wordsworth changed poetic language by defying traditions which had
>fossilised. and by showing that a worthwhile poetry could be achieved
>without the folderols.
>
>That doesnt mean his style it the "right" one for ever more.
>
>all best
>SallyE
>