Hi Grasshopper -
I agree about the effect that old fashioned writing may make.
theres an interesting corollary to this poem. I wrote that "sonnet stanza"
because that was how it struck me, and then I moved on to the next stanza
about the old pack horse bridge that was there and the poeple passing over
it in the past, and the whole thing became a kind of "ghost poem" and
finished with an attempt to discuss the ghostiness of it, in terms of us
being the ghosts that the packhorse people might have seen.
I dont think I'll put it up on the board, not yet anyway because it is a
difficult poem and I dont think its anywhere near right yet. but the point
is I used old language because (tho I didnt realise it) I was beginning a
piece about former times!
all best
SallyE
on 19/8/04 7:09 am, grasshopper at [log in to unmask]
wrote:
> 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
>>
|