If this is what a New Romantic is, then kiss me I'm a New Romantic! What I worry about re the "common language" discourse is how easy it is to chase "common language" all the way down into the primordial sludge of senselessness. Many of the "contemporary" poets many of us decry are so wretched precisely because this seems to have been their project. But your (Eliot's, et al) focus on the reforming of poetry using forgotten — but still valid — standards is spot on, I think.
Thank you Sam. What a "common language" even means is a difficult thing to talk about. Is such a thing even possible? What does it look like in poetry? Still lots of things to consider, but that's the aim at least.
Great piece! You kind of stole my thunder, as it were...I've been working on an essay in response to an "acclaimed" modern poet who dismissed rhymed poetry as trivial because it didn't allow the poet to write poems in a way that was akin to how people speak; the gist of my argument is writing a rhymed poem that sounded like how people speak is actually incredibly difficult, but worthy of the effort!
I do always stand on the hill of "theory follows practice" in the arts; whatever new movements are afoot in poetry they will be defined and categorized by literary critics post hoc as the practitioners begin to have a more clearly defined set of commonalities. But I doubt the poets who are defining whatever comes are thinking "Gee, I really want to revolutionize poetry in such-and-such a fashion." Rather, they are pursuing novelty, something different and fresh from the norm of what is seen in "literary" magazines. Such is always the way of new movements in the arts.
I agree Ernie. It's a bit gauche for a poet, or any artist, to talk about their art in such a way. The art should do the work, and speak for itself.
I think rhyming is a useful tool, for creating energy, for emphasis and change in tone. When you can do it with the sorts of prose rhythms you find in speech, it's more difficult, as you say, but definitely worth the effort.
It really was the tone of condescension towards rhyme that got me in the essay i read..😂 It seems the contemporary poets have gone down one of two rabbit holes; either their “poems” are so speech-like that they are essentially prose chopped into fragments, or the “poems” are dense with cryptic imagery that defies finding any meaning from the work…
I for one welcome the poems of poets like you, Sam, Rachel Custer, and J.Z Schafer as a breath of fresh air…
Thank you, Robert! Thoroughly enjoyed this. Your grasp of the history and usage of Romanticism is as excellent as I would expect. I have been thinking a lot about why most contemporary poetry falls into two camps. Surrealist goo that feels like a fever dream I couldn't parse for the life of me and vague sentiment that could be said better in prose. Poetry should be an experience in which the whole adds up to more than the parts, even if a reader can't name all the poetic devices at work. It seems A. E. Stallings has forged a way through the most common pitfalls of modern poetry. She told Forbes, “The ancients taught me how to sound modern." Her application of form probably isn't the same as yours, but her understanding of its role seems similar: “They showed me that technique was not the enemy of urgency, but the instrument.” Is New Formalism distinct in an important way from New Romanticism?
I like that quote from Stallings. I think she's a strong poet. (I read my daughter Stallings' translation of the War of Frogs and Mice, and she was captivated!) When you look to the past like that, to the great writers of the past, in order to inform your own work, it tends to make you a stronger writer.
I think both a New Formalism and a New Romanticism accept the premise that poetry is an art, and as such it has a history and a craft. They take poetry seriously.
"Surrealist goo that feels like a fever dream I couldn't parse for the life of me and vague sentiment that could be said better in prose." Even worse if they're the same thing!
I like the idea of calling myself a New Formalist or New Romantic, but I think I am there in spirit more than in practice. Almost everything I write first sees the light as a very bad free verse journal entry. Yesterday I sat next to a creek making sure my two youngest sons didn't drown while their older brothers suffered cross country practice in the heat and read Olives by Stllings straight through. She is as entertaining as Billy Collins and as metrically satisfying as Frost.
Mine starts as mess in my journals too. Lines, phrases here and there. Lots of prose just thinking through ideas. Notebooks of trash to mine little flakes of gold from. I think she just had a new book of selected poems come out. A good chance to go back and reread her.
I like the distinction between the poetic romantic impulse and the destructive ideologies that ruined Europe and modern education. Your points about Shelley are good. If I recall, Browning's "The Lost Leader" tried to roast Wordsworth for being insufficiently radical in his old age. Those sad youngsters always trying to "change the world" (and usually succeeding in the worst way possible).
I think Tolkien might be called a "Romantic" in your sense (and perhaps is already, with respect language, nature, industry, etc.), but he certainly wouldn't endorse Rousseau, Hegel, et al. Is the term "New Romantic" yours or did I miss the origin story? Would the point be better served by a different label?
Thanks J. Ive been using that term for myself because I've felt I had the same concerns in mind that wordsworth and coleridge had, but it's hard to separate it from the other things it implies. There's been a lot of talk on here about romanticism, and I wanted to carve out a space for myself. Maybe there is a better term, but for now that's how I think about my own work.
If this is what a New Romantic is, then kiss me I'm a New Romantic! What I worry about re the "common language" discourse is how easy it is to chase "common language" all the way down into the primordial sludge of senselessness. Many of the "contemporary" poets many of us decry are so wretched precisely because this seems to have been their project. But your (Eliot's, et al) focus on the reforming of poetry using forgotten — but still valid — standards is spot on, I think.
Very well written piece as always, Robert!
Well said, Sam. And yeah, you're a New Romantic!😁
Thank you Sam. What a "common language" even means is a difficult thing to talk about. Is such a thing even possible? What does it look like in poetry? Still lots of things to consider, but that's the aim at least.
Great piece! You kind of stole my thunder, as it were...I've been working on an essay in response to an "acclaimed" modern poet who dismissed rhymed poetry as trivial because it didn't allow the poet to write poems in a way that was akin to how people speak; the gist of my argument is writing a rhymed poem that sounded like how people speak is actually incredibly difficult, but worthy of the effort!
I do always stand on the hill of "theory follows practice" in the arts; whatever new movements are afoot in poetry they will be defined and categorized by literary critics post hoc as the practitioners begin to have a more clearly defined set of commonalities. But I doubt the poets who are defining whatever comes are thinking "Gee, I really want to revolutionize poetry in such-and-such a fashion." Rather, they are pursuing novelty, something different and fresh from the norm of what is seen in "literary" magazines. Such is always the way of new movements in the arts.
I agree Ernie. It's a bit gauche for a poet, or any artist, to talk about their art in such a way. The art should do the work, and speak for itself.
I think rhyming is a useful tool, for creating energy, for emphasis and change in tone. When you can do it with the sorts of prose rhythms you find in speech, it's more difficult, as you say, but definitely worth the effort.
It really was the tone of condescension towards rhyme that got me in the essay i read..😂 It seems the contemporary poets have gone down one of two rabbit holes; either their “poems” are so speech-like that they are essentially prose chopped into fragments, or the “poems” are dense with cryptic imagery that defies finding any meaning from the work…
I for one welcome the poems of poets like you, Sam, Rachel Custer, and J.Z Schafer as a breath of fresh air…
Thanks Ernie. There's much to like about those poets.
Thank you, Robert! Thoroughly enjoyed this. Your grasp of the history and usage of Romanticism is as excellent as I would expect. I have been thinking a lot about why most contemporary poetry falls into two camps. Surrealist goo that feels like a fever dream I couldn't parse for the life of me and vague sentiment that could be said better in prose. Poetry should be an experience in which the whole adds up to more than the parts, even if a reader can't name all the poetic devices at work. It seems A. E. Stallings has forged a way through the most common pitfalls of modern poetry. She told Forbes, “The ancients taught me how to sound modern." Her application of form probably isn't the same as yours, but her understanding of its role seems similar: “They showed me that technique was not the enemy of urgency, but the instrument.” Is New Formalism distinct in an important way from New Romanticism?
I like that quote from Stallings. I think she's a strong poet. (I read my daughter Stallings' translation of the War of Frogs and Mice, and she was captivated!) When you look to the past like that, to the great writers of the past, in order to inform your own work, it tends to make you a stronger writer.
I think both a New Formalism and a New Romanticism accept the premise that poetry is an art, and as such it has a history and a craft. They take poetry seriously.
"Surrealist goo that feels like a fever dream I couldn't parse for the life of me and vague sentiment that could be said better in prose." Even worse if they're the same thing!
I like the idea of calling myself a New Formalist or New Romantic, but I think I am there in spirit more than in practice. Almost everything I write first sees the light as a very bad free verse journal entry. Yesterday I sat next to a creek making sure my two youngest sons didn't drown while their older brothers suffered cross country practice in the heat and read Olives by Stllings straight through. She is as entertaining as Billy Collins and as metrically satisfying as Frost.
Mine starts as mess in my journals too. Lines, phrases here and there. Lots of prose just thinking through ideas. Notebooks of trash to mine little flakes of gold from. I think she just had a new book of selected poems come out. A good chance to go back and reread her.
I like the distinction between the poetic romantic impulse and the destructive ideologies that ruined Europe and modern education. Your points about Shelley are good. If I recall, Browning's "The Lost Leader" tried to roast Wordsworth for being insufficiently radical in his old age. Those sad youngsters always trying to "change the world" (and usually succeeding in the worst way possible).
I think Tolkien might be called a "Romantic" in your sense (and perhaps is already, with respect language, nature, industry, etc.), but he certainly wouldn't endorse Rousseau, Hegel, et al. Is the term "New Romantic" yours or did I miss the origin story? Would the point be better served by a different label?
Thanks J. Ive been using that term for myself because I've felt I had the same concerns in mind that wordsworth and coleridge had, but it's hard to separate it from the other things it implies. There's been a lot of talk on here about romanticism, and I wanted to carve out a space for myself. Maybe there is a better term, but for now that's how I think about my own work.
I appreciate your concern not only for what we say but also how we say it. Great thoughts all around.
Thank you Zane