Oh yeah--I remembered one thing I wanted to say, which is that Hayden
Carruth's three part essay on Alexander Pope's prosody in "Effluences from
the Sacred Caves" is a wonderful piece that people in this discussion who
have not read it might be very interested in. It's a very different approach
to meter than the one we have been discussing; Carruth is more concerned
with the practical problems posed by iambic pentameter to a working poet
than with questions of cultural meaning. (The title of the essay escapes me
now, and I don't have the book hands. Sorry.)
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alison Croggon
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 5:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: quickies:metrical code, feminism/formalism
On 30/8/05 1:21 AM, "Annie Finch" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Iambic pentameter means the opposite for Audre Lorde than it
> does for Whitman. Form is a feminist force for some women writers and
> not at all for others. But certain forms CAN be a feminist force (or
> the opposite) for certain writers at certain historical times. For me
> personally, formalism is closely connected just now with my being a
> feminist writer. ...
That sparks some connections with the more interesting bits of Germaine
Greer's argument in Slipshod Sibyls, where she speaks of women poets in say
17C England confidently using and subverting the formal devices employed by
male poets - alas, my books have all been rearranged recently and I can't
find this one anywhere to look up who she was talking about. I do know I've
used formal devices myself in ways that seek to subvert their original
context and intent. Yes, extremely contextual, but I can see how it might
be done.
Best
A
Alison Croggon
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|