- The discussion along the lines "is it true poetry or not" tends
to forget that the notion of good poetry changes with time.
>There is verse, good and bad; and there is
>poetry, good and bad. Johnson of course noted that it is easier to say
>what is not
>poetry than to say what it is.
I do not want to say that we cannot judge at all. What I want to say
is that "extratextual" part is important. There are "genres"
that practically do not exist in modern times - for example,
in medieval arabic poetry it existed as a special genre to denigrate
somebody in very furious way. I don't remember modern poetry
expressing fury as main emotional state (except maybe one poem
by Apollinaire where he is imitating this form, "a letter to
the Sultan", but this is an imitation). And it would be difficult
to us to judge this kind of poems. (Is it poetry or just versification?)
I think what is important (but of course not sufficient) for good
poetry is a sort of inner honesty, and this concerns also the choice
of form. Why one cannot write seriously any "epic" nowadays?
A lot of poetry in XX century developped as negation of "well-oiled
machines" of previous epochs. But now we see that so called modernists
(and post-modernists) can be as dogmatic and produce worse things
than their predecessors. "Well-oiled machine" is replaced by
another machine which is not even oiled, not by living thing.
So on some "meta-level" the choice of
"archaic" form can itself be a sort of poetic act.
And what is poetic act with respect to existing context changes.
Meaning of choice changes.
Why Shade (or VN) has chosen this archaic form for PF?

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.