 |
 |
I'm still interested in traditional forms and ballads. Just because you're employing an older form doesn't mean you have to write anachronistically - I've read plenty of free verse that seemed more archaic than good innovative use of the villanelle, sestina, ballad etc. The approach is all - we don't have to be dominated by forms, they can work for us. It's when the form is indulged as a fetish, a way of insinuating oneself into a 'grand tradition,' that we should worry. But I doubt there are many on this list who would contemplate such a thing. Best, Malcolm >Dear Group, > >"now that traditional structures, ballads etc don't >convince or interest us anymore." > >Can I get some further clarification on John Bennett's comment here? Do >people feel that the presence of other modes of writing invalidates >traditional forms? It's my feeling that becoming one mode among many can >rejuvenate them -- for instance I found it quite entertaining to write a >conventional Wordsworthian sonnet about visiting the grave of a Dadaist >(Kurt Schwitters). I'm never very confident about throwing things out, I >suppose, or disposing of one thing simply because we have another. > >Best, > >Bill H %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%