I love it when poetry becomes a contact sport! Why should hockey players have all the fun? Having said that, when I saw the superscript 1 next to "Teutonic barbarity," I was afraid Mr C was going to prove in a footnote that Ms. Marstall is descended from Hitler. I'm glad he didn't! That would be going too far. Even hockey players are pulled apart after a few teeth get knocked out.
I agree that the little "Wild Geese" exegesis was silly. Open the Tax Code at random, and behold: soft sounds and monosyllables and long sounds and multisyllabic words (oh, look, there's that inspired "hundred"). Mary Oliver must've taken time off from her mania for "nature" to help out with IRC Section 7 a(iii). Well, if she did, it's the least insipid thing she ever wrote.
Mr. C, I hope the Teutonic barbarity hits back hard. I'm ready to pile on you, too, if given the opportunity. This is how poetry should be conducted: Not with a whimper but with a bang. (Seems to be required in these discussions to back up every claim with an Eliot quote. There's mine.)
This series of exchanges is proving very rich. Thanks for the next installation. A comment: the selected battleground of the Oliver poem doesn't seem like a good place to further this discussion. I'd be more curious as to your and Ms. Marstall's thoughts regarding a way Forward. It seems that metered verse is indispensable to Poetry qua poetry insofar as the intentional rhythmic and figured organization of language provides a means to discriminate... what? good poetry from bad? Attention to rhythm and the deep, embodied sensitivities of language seem to be emphasized by both of you, but to me, neither formalist nor free verse criteria (however vague that latter's might be) seem sufficient to Prescribe a good poem. Prosody, though, is capable of Describing a good poem, after the fact, when we have already recognized it as such. And maybe of debunking a poem like Oliver's, which feels vaguely good, but may not be a subtly crafted as it first appears. Contra that, Eliot gives the example of Swinburnian meter, which is complex but, once learned, kind of boring. I'm rambling, forgive me. Keep it up.
I think the Way is to practice the craft of poetry as well as you can. Gain an ear for what’s good by reading the great poets of the past. Imitate and iterate until you shed the skin of their styles and your work starts to sound like what you are.
Craft alone is not sufficient for good poetry, but it’s a start. It’s better to practice saying something well even if you’re lacking in wisdom or experience or wit or imagination or intellectual power or anything which makes writing valuable. Those things often come anyway from giving oneself over to the deep study of something.
"For my part, when I want to read about the everyday transcendence of the natural world, I pick up Annie Dillard instead. She does it better in prose than Oliver in poetry."
I am in full agreement with you about this. She has wonderful observational insight and the craft to match it, rather than "vague sentiment."
"To ignore it, because it seems old-fashioned or outdated, is to have a hammerless toolbox because a hammer is not electric." Nicely put. I agree too that the "assumptions of one generation were lost by the next," such that both practitioners and consumers of poetry like Oliver's set the parameters of engagement at "pretty language" and "earnestness"—characteristics that do little to set the artform apart from elegant prose or conscientious epigraph.
Agree with you there. I always come back to the question: what does poetry do differently that makes it valuable as an art? There's plenty of good prose out there.
While I myself write free verse, I support you, Robert. One of my favorite poets from the modern era J.V. Cunningham, wrote in meter. One needs to be open-minded.
I responded to her original comment that the Oliver poem wasn't a very good one to make her point. Though I do think you and her agree on more than you disagree.
Thanks for the great article; I don't know much about all the literary theory stuff (though I do know about prosody and scansion from high school) so I always learn something from your essays.
I've never understood why any writer or reader of poetry would resist an understanding of meter or, at least, cadence. Training the ear to read as well as the eye doubles the pleasure. Triples, actually, since one reads in pleasure, one hears in pleasure, and one calculates the degree of echo between them in pleasure as well. To make the sentiment sensible, to give thought it's thorns: this is excellence in poetry and can be done in various and subtle ways.
Agree with you there. Well said. Yvor Winters said, "the poem exhausts more fully than any other literary form the inherent possibilities of language." This includes considerations of rhythm and cadence as a matter of craft.
I love it when poetry becomes a contact sport! Why should hockey players have all the fun? Having said that, when I saw the superscript 1 next to "Teutonic barbarity," I was afraid Mr C was going to prove in a footnote that Ms. Marstall is descended from Hitler. I'm glad he didn't! That would be going too far. Even hockey players are pulled apart after a few teeth get knocked out.
I agree that the little "Wild Geese" exegesis was silly. Open the Tax Code at random, and behold: soft sounds and monosyllables and long sounds and multisyllabic words (oh, look, there's that inspired "hundred"). Mary Oliver must've taken time off from her mania for "nature" to help out with IRC Section 7 a(iii). Well, if she did, it's the least insipid thing she ever wrote.
Mr. C, I hope the Teutonic barbarity hits back hard. I'm ready to pile on you, too, if given the opportunity. This is how poetry should be conducted: Not with a whimper but with a bang. (Seems to be required in these discussions to back up every claim with an Eliot quote. There's mine.)
She said she was trying to stir the pot. These pamphlet wars are far from over I hope
Me, too. I’m all for bringing back meter if we can also bring back literary assassinations.
this is what substack is for
The sound of thunderous truth is what we want to hear in poetry. However you draw that out, doesn't matter.
Cheers to that. 🥂
This series of exchanges is proving very rich. Thanks for the next installation. A comment: the selected battleground of the Oliver poem doesn't seem like a good place to further this discussion. I'd be more curious as to your and Ms. Marstall's thoughts regarding a way Forward. It seems that metered verse is indispensable to Poetry qua poetry insofar as the intentional rhythmic and figured organization of language provides a means to discriminate... what? good poetry from bad? Attention to rhythm and the deep, embodied sensitivities of language seem to be emphasized by both of you, but to me, neither formalist nor free verse criteria (however vague that latter's might be) seem sufficient to Prescribe a good poem. Prosody, though, is capable of Describing a good poem, after the fact, when we have already recognized it as such. And maybe of debunking a poem like Oliver's, which feels vaguely good, but may not be a subtly crafted as it first appears. Contra that, Eliot gives the example of Swinburnian meter, which is complex but, once learned, kind of boring. I'm rambling, forgive me. Keep it up.
I think the Way is to practice the craft of poetry as well as you can. Gain an ear for what’s good by reading the great poets of the past. Imitate and iterate until you shed the skin of their styles and your work starts to sound like what you are.
Craft alone is not sufficient for good poetry, but it’s a start. It’s better to practice saying something well even if you’re lacking in wisdom or experience or wit or imagination or intellectual power or anything which makes writing valuable. Those things often come anyway from giving oneself over to the deep study of something.
A duel, sir! A duel!
Mine honor is at stake
"For my part, when I want to read about the everyday transcendence of the natural world, I pick up Annie Dillard instead. She does it better in prose than Oliver in poetry."
I am in full agreement with you about this. She has wonderful observational insight and the craft to match it, rather than "vague sentiment."
"To ignore it, because it seems old-fashioned or outdated, is to have a hammerless toolbox because a hammer is not electric." Nicely put. I agree too that the "assumptions of one generation were lost by the next," such that both practitioners and consumers of poetry like Oliver's set the parameters of engagement at "pretty language" and "earnestness"—characteristics that do little to set the artform apart from elegant prose or conscientious epigraph.
Agree with you there. I always come back to the question: what does poetry do differently that makes it valuable as an art? There's plenty of good prose out there.
I’m here for all of this! 🍿🥤
While I myself write free verse, I support you, Robert. One of my favorite poets from the modern era J.V. Cunningham, wrote in meter. One needs to be open-minded.
Thank you Peter. Wiseblood Books recently came out with a collection of Cunningham’s essays that I’m interested in reading. Cunningham is great.
I responded to her original comment that the Oliver poem wasn't a very good one to make her point. Though I do think you and her agree on more than you disagree.
Thanks for the great article; I don't know much about all the literary theory stuff (though I do know about prosody and scansion from high school) so I always learn something from your essays.
Thank you Ernie. I saw your comment on her post. I think we agree about Oliver.
I’m not very educated, but it seems to me without meter, my writing is more of an essay or very, very, short story…
Yeah, it's at least less musical than it could be if you didn't think about rhythmic structure.
I've never understood why any writer or reader of poetry would resist an understanding of meter or, at least, cadence. Training the ear to read as well as the eye doubles the pleasure. Triples, actually, since one reads in pleasure, one hears in pleasure, and one calculates the degree of echo between them in pleasure as well. To make the sentiment sensible, to give thought it's thorns: this is excellence in poetry and can be done in various and subtle ways.
Agree with you there. Well said. Yvor Winters said, "the poem exhausts more fully than any other literary form the inherent possibilities of language." This includes considerations of rhythm and cadence as a matter of craft.
This was such a gratifying read
Thank you MaryAnne. It's edifying to write about poetry longform
Love this whole conversation, it's more fun than the Superbowl and I'm learning a lot! Thanks to both of you.