Modern Vs. Archaic

[pseud]

Just general questions anyone can chime in on I suppose.

1. Are we being too hard or too soft on those who post in the traditional styles in this forum?

2. Is there ever a place for reverse syntax (rearranging sentence order for the sake of rhyme or meter) in modern verse?

3. Do you prefer a traditional theme in a modern form, or modern theme and traditional form?

4. Airspeed velocity of a European swallow? Anyone?

[cameron]

What is this? Set questions for the ghost of TS Eliot?

1. What do you mean by traditional styles? Do you mean traditional forms? We can never be too hard on people who write using archaic language. Each generation of poets must utilise the language of the day to create new poetry.

2. No.

3. How many modern forms are there? Most poetic forms date back hundreds of years - with the exception of the arcku of course. The main modern form I suppose is vers libre - which is really an absence of form. Many traditional themes are eternal themes such as love, death, suffering, decay etc and are still relevant provided they are rendered in a modern context. Larkin was extremely good at doing modern themes in traditional forms. Tony Harrison's School of Eloquence Sonnets are also a good example of this.

4. Laden or unladen?

Cam

[Bombadil]

Boy, you really know how to rub Cam's buttons...

1. Nah, criticism is really immaterial if you don't intend to listen. So, if someone is offended by the force du critique or lack thereof...they're taking it too personally. If you don't want to change, hear but do not listen.

2. I'm divided on this. I don't think language should be adapted for the sake of form--that is a sort of self-censorship isn't it? Also most people, when attempting an archaic slant, fuck it up royally. The grand majority of people do not even use modern language correctly...so many end up twisting shit about and calling it archaic for the sake of concealing their errors in some otherwise classy way. Bad grammar is still so, no matter the slant. Most attempts at classicism make the writer sound more like an introspective version of Yoda... Yoda may be profound but he is no poet and as such is not worth emulating linguistically. On the other hand...when it's done right, it makes for great farce and subtle cynicism.

3. Come again? I'm sorry I can't. It took all my energy just to do it once...

4. Ni!

[pseud]

What is this? Set questions for the ghost of TS Eliot?

Well, that or just to spark some conversation.

Most poetic forms date back hundreds of years - with the exception of the arcku of course. The main modern form I suppose is vers libre - which is really an absence of form. Many traditional themes are eternal themes such as love, death, suffering, decay etc and are still relevant provided they are rendered in a modern context.

Several good points at once - almost too many to soak in for me (I know quite a bit about painting styles but very little about poetic forms). Saying something should be "rendered in a modern context seems to me to suggest you chose the latter of my choices - modern theme in traditional form.

Boy, you really know how to rub Cam's buttons...

If only I had meant to...

If you don't want to change, hear but do not listen.

I think I get you. You're saying use feedback for your future poems. Makes sense - that way you're keeping currently honest, while disguising the actual lesson learned as "experience" rather than "conformity."

Also most people, when attempting an archaic slant, fuck it up royally. The grand majority of people do not even use modern language correctly...so many end up twisting shit about and calling it archaic for the sake of concealing their errors in some otherwise classy way.

I wholeheartedly agree. But suppose someone is decent at it? Is cam right - is it still wrong to be talking like you live in 1605? Or 1805?

- sood the rood and obscer

[k-j]

European Swallows are pretty quick: perhaps as much as 40 / 50 knots (forwards, laden with one coconut).

[pseud]

Hummingbirds take the cake though.

[Sean Kinsella]

I'm sorry, but a few things I don't understand

1) why are we never too harsh on archaic language?

and...

2) Why must poets of the day utilise modern language to create poetry.

Speak to people who normally have nothing to do with poetry, and ask them to name a few poets/famous poems. Five gets you ten they dont come from the modern school.

You mention Carol Ann Duffy, and maybe one or two know who you mean, then you mention Tennyson Gray or Wordsworth, and everyone's suddenly on your wavelength

The phrase I normally get back is 'now that's what I understand as poetry'.

So why the bias?....or if you prefer, should the RSC/BBC stop performing Shakespeare?

BEST REGARDS
SEAN KINSELLA

[cameron]

Sean

Wordsworth has been part of the canon for two hundred years so it's obvious that people are going to recognise him above the likes of Carol Ann Duffy, Simon Armitage, Peter Reading etc. The fact that the general public can't name contemporary poets comes as no surprise to me as 95% of the public have no interest in poetry anyway.

Perhaps more people would read poetry if poets stopped writing archaic, romantic nonsense and focused their attention on the world around us.

There's no question of not performing Shakespeare but space should always be made available for modern, up and coming dramatists with new things to say.

It's easy to evaluate the old masters, but much harder to evaluate contemporary works.

Cam

[seeksthebalance]

Hey... here's my two penneth,

1, Be as harsh or as soft as you like; just be honest. If a poem grabs you by the balls and says 'read me', then why does it matter that its language is archaic. I don't think there is any need for a communal criteria by which to judge the poetry posted on this site or written anywhere else. If you like it say so and say why, and the same if you don't.

2, Each reader is individual and will judge based upon their own ideas, so if you don't like it then leave it well alone for those who do, but don't assume that it has no value. I personally think there is little room for it in my poetry, but then I don't assume everyone else feels the same way. Poets are entitled to express themselves in whatever form they feel is appropriate.


3, I like a poem that says something in a way that piques my curiosity enough to analyse it further, and that holds up to my analysis. The form and the language are for the poet decide and for me to interpret. I personally have written in both ways and found them equally useful.

4, 'I one more time, mac, unclog my nose in your direction, sons of a window-dresser'

Seeks

[william]

your mother was hamster, and your father smelt of alderberries...

[dillingworth]

Seeks, I couldn't have put it better myself. "Archaic" language (a negative term in itself) has to be done properly, and very very rarely is, but it's always down to the individual poet to decide how he wants to express himself - words are not the exclusive property of a given century, although using certain words brings with it a whole load of interesting assumptions and associations.

all poetry and poets are, as larkin wrote, "bent in by the blows of what happened to happen", and part of that is our poetic heritage. whether we revisit and reshape that heritage or try to escape it or just ignore it, we have to be willing to tolerate all attempts at poetic expression.

[Bombadil]

he reeked of elderberries...

and I quote (myself):


Bombadil wrote:

I don't think language should be adapted for the sake of form--that is a sort of self-censorship isn't it? Also most people, when attempting an archaic slant, fuck it up royally. The grand majority of people do not even use modern language correctly...so many end up twisting shit about and calling it archaic for the sake of concealing their errors in some otherwise classy way. Bad grammar is still so, no matter the slant. Most attempts at classicism make the writer sound more like an introspective version of Yoda... Yoda may be profound but he is no poet and as such is not worth emulating linguistically. On the other hand...when it's done right, it makes for great farce and subtle cynicism.

[k-j]

Shakeseare didn't use the lingo of Chaucer, and Wordsworth didn't parrot the syntax of Shakespeare, or Milton, and no-one in their right mind would want to sound like their great great grandparents. Would they? Millions of modern amateur poets do, though, apparently.

As for reverse syntax, I don't care how many people profess to like it, or muse that "it has its place", or wheel out the collapsed, week-old soufflé of subjectivism - <b>it's very, very wrong</b>.

Anyway, the debate itself is antiquated. Reading's right: <i>Verse at the best of times / chunters to an insubstantial minority</i>.

While I'm at him,

Who do these poetry wallahs think they are, anyway?
Grub St reviewing its own lame valedictory bunk.

[william]

he reeked of elderberries...

Yeh. Damn. What'd I say? Spelling never was my thing.

- will

[Charles]

1) Not sure - depends what you mean by style. People should be encouraged to master old verse forms and iambics, but we should make clear that "thy" or "brethren" are not words that should really be put in modern poems.

It's interesting though - Pound said that archaic language shouldn't be used because it showed the writer was not drawing from real life - it's not authentic. But when I see some modern poetry, the vocabulary and phrasing is often just as bogus and alien from real life as the bad archaic stuff you get from the other end of the spectrum. Double standard maybe? At least badly emulating Shakespeare takes some skill... a three year old could badly emulate Eliot or E. E. Cummings

2) If it works it works.

3) Modern theme traditional form! I'll echo the respect for Larkin's ability to do this so effortlessly. Of course, as others have said a lot of (most?) themes are universal, but I think that they should be expressed through the languages and culture you live with, not the culture found in a book.

4) Depends on the coconut.

[oranggunung]

Does 'wine-dark' count as archaic?

It appears to be constructed in a way that mimics older works.

I only ask, as I saw it posted here recently.

[k-j]

Og: It's archaic in the sense that it's an old idea, as you suggest, the Vikings filled their verse with these noun-adjective (or otherwise) combinations. Personally I'm a big fan of this kind of epithet; it has more immediacy if you see what I mean. But Old English and Norse were different languages from English: I think it's OK to draw ideas from other tongues, but to parrot the Romantics or the Augustans is just ridiculous. Because poetry (for me and others) is partly about renewing your language, not abandoning it for an earlier version - and that's the problem with archaisms.

[pseud]

Yeah, that brings up another problem - that there is not a clear line between "modern" and "archaic," good point Orang(e?).

[Lu59]

We accept, enjoy and often revere the archaic in other art forms - paintings, theatre, music - many people still prefer a Constable-style landscape over a Damien Hurst (or whoever!), pantomime and Shakespeare are still alive and well in the theatre (thank goodness!) and there are plenty of people who I guess still tune into Radio 3 and have i-pods full of Handel and Mozart!

Poetry is, and always will be, a matter of personal taste. We all read the kind of poetry that does it for us, and many of the best-selling poetry anthologies are of the "archaic" kind, ie the classics and lighter, rhyming popular verse.

Personally, I read and try to write many different forms of poetry, even though I do have my favourites that I tend to revert back to, my "comfort zone" if you like (Keats to read, sonnets to write). Having said that, I firmly believe that poetry will continue to evolve, and that there is always room for new poetic forms to be appreciated amongst the old.
Whether modern or archaic, I agree that no poetry should ever be contrived - if it is, best to re-write it! Better still, pend it for a while, then go back and maybe try writing it in a different poetic form - sometimes it's as simple as your poem doesn't like the coat you are trying to make it wear!

I notice that any poem on the theme of love takes a good knocking (or gets ignored) on this forum, too, whether in the modern style or more traditional. I can appreciate that this forum is "not a love-in", but love (and it's fallout) is the strongest human emotion, and, as such, surely cannot be ignored by poets who are the very people who have the skill to put into words what most people experience but are not able to express. I am not talking about the "moon/June" or "roses are red" school of verse here, but good, serious, well-formed poetry.

Poets get their inspiration from anything and everything, from the mundane to the massive, so let's not knock either the language or form used, nor the subject matter, but simply criticise to the best of our ability, whether we would have written it that way or not.
Lu

[Wabznasm]

Some good points there Lu.

In defence of PG here though:

I notice that any poem on the theme of love takes a good knocking (or gets ignored) on this forum, too, whether in the modern style or more traditional. I can appreciate that this forum is "not a love-in", but love (and it's fallout) is the strongest human emotion, and, as such, surely cannot be ignored by poets who are the very people who have the skill to put into words what most people experience but are not able to express. I am not talking about the "moon/June" or "roses are red" school of verse here, but good, serious, well-formed poetry.

Love is one of the strongest human emotions. But it's also one of the most worn out. Originality is a very important thing in modern poetry, especially here. A lot of new love poetry can be excellent, especially when with themes we don't know much about, or scenarios that are different and new. But a lot of love poetry, to me at least, is just the rehashing of old ideas. And when some of the love poetry written 400 years is better and more original than some modern (published and unpublished) love poetry, I can't help but feel a bit wary.

Anyway, back to the thread

[k-j]

Lu: I don't think anyone's suggesting we can't appreciate archaic poetry (or painting, music etc.) I would take a Turner over a Hirst any day. The point is that it doesn't make sense to write like Mozart or Keats in 2007, just as it wouldn't have made sense to Mozart to compose in the Renaissance style.

I agree about love being the strongest human emotion - or perhaps the basis for the other emotions. Modern poetry does seem reluctant to talk plainly about love, and I think this is a shame. Styles and forms wear out, but themes don't. Sometimes I get bored of poems about going to the laundromat or eating peaches, and yearn for a well-expressed, original but not outré boy-girl love poem.

[Lu59]

k-j

Sometimes I get bored of poems about going to the laundromat or eating peaches, and yearn for a well-expressed, original but not outré boy-girl love poem.

My point exactly - but expressed much more succinctly. Thank you!

The point is that it doesn't make sense to write like Mozart or Keats in 2007, just as it wouldn't have made sense to Mozart to compose in the Renaissance style.

It does if you are entering a sonnet competition! (And there are still plenty of them around!)

Wabznasm

And when some of the love poetry written 400 years is better and more original than some modern (published and unpublished) love poetry, I can't help but feel a bit wary.

Why wary? Should we translate as "threatened"?! If that's the case, then what's the harm in resurrecting eg the sonnet, if there are poets out there who can still write - and write well - in the sonnet form? Modern poets needn't feel threatened by "better and more original" work, it is simply another genre. Besides, competition is healthy!
Lu

[k-j]

The sonnet form isn't outdated, any more than the haiku. It's certainly not what I mean when I talk about "archaisms" in poetry. I think everyone who calls themself a poet ought to be able to write a sonnet; it should be the first prerequisite. But we need to write the sonnet in our language, not in Keats's language. The voice is what has to be modern.

[Wabznasm]

I quite enjoy sonnets. And, as you say, there are a lot of fine metrical writers out there.

Lu - I cocked up the word choice there. I intended to say I was 'tired'. But we need love poetry that explores love in the 21st Century. I think the danger, as KJ says, is to drown under the archaic roots of the Sonnet and write with the voice it had years ago. Keep the idea, change the execution.

Still though - and this question is not trying to challenge - could you link me to some good love poetry? One sonnet that springs to mind is Billy Collins' 'Sonnet', but that would be dull done twice. My distate for modern love poetry stems from my lack of reading lots (that I like), please enlighten me.

[David]

Dave - Billy Collins' 'Sonnet' - you're absolutely right. That deserves to be quoted in full:

All we need is fourteen lines, well, thirteen now,
and after this one just a dozen
to launch a little ship on love's storm-tossed seas,
then only ten more left like rows of beans.
How easily it goes unless you get Elizabethan
and insist the iambic bongos must be played
and rhymes positioned at the ends of lines,
one for every station of the cross.
But hang on here wile we make the turn
into the final six where all will be resolved,
where longing and heartache will find an end,
where Laura will tell Petrarch to put down his pen,
take off those crazy medieval tights,
blow out the lights, and come at last to bed.

To be honest, I find the counting down of the lines quite tiresome and twee, but when we get to where Laura will tell Petrarch to put down his pen, / take off those crazy medieval tights, / blow out the lights, and come at last to bed, that's it, we're sold. Crazy medieval tights - that's just brilliant.