egads, I thought I mentioned in my post that reading/writing
traditional forms are definitely a good way of getting a better grip
on the phonics of poetry, there's no doubt about that. I'm mentioning
it now in case I didn't before
K S
On 20/09/06, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> That certainly can happen; I often find it in younger student poets
> trying trad forms, but I have also seen far too many flat, flabby
> (prose broken into lines) free verse, so, going back to Pound, one
> needs to keep an eye/ear out for rhythm, compression, etc. Even in
> those 'long poems'....
>
> It's interesting that Bishop left so many 'unfinished' poems, that she
> felt weren't finished enough (in all sense of that term) to be
> published, yet I read some of them as open & free in ways that I admire
> & enjoy....
>
> Doug
> On 20-Sep-06, at 7:07 AM, Roger Day wrote:
>
> > I read a review of Elizabeth Bishops work which said that form turned
> > the poem to laxity as the poet tried to fill in the gaps demanded by
> > the form, whilst the freer verse was more compact, springy, life-full,
> Douglas Barbour
> 11655 - 72 Avenue NW
> Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
> (780) 436 3320
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
> Latest book: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
>
> Where philosophy stops, poetry is impelled to begin. He was
> a man, far away from home, biting his nails at destiny.
>
> Susan Howe
>
|