Dear Sergei,
Although you are saying that you are agreeing mainly with Matthew, I
wouldn't myself disagree with what I think you are saying below; eg
Why Shade (or VN) has chosen this archaic form for
PF?
if it would be too good as poetry, it would destroy the
whole.
Your remark about outmoded genres
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.
reminded me that the same genre existed in medieval Old Norse times. I
think it was called "flyting". I can think of at least one splendid example in
modern English, where a would-be drunk reels off about 20 lines
of ballistic invective, hurled at a barmaid who had refused him a glass of
his favourite poison. Unsurprisingly, since he wasn't going to pay for it. I've
got it somewhere, but can't lay my hands on it just now.
Anyway, I believe I'm entirely with you on the basic point you're
making; and yes, great art will be unlike what has gone before; eg Pale
Fire the book.
Charles
In a message dated 01/11/2006 23:08:41 GMT Standard Time,
NABOKV-L@HOLYCROSS.EDU writes:
Matthew, Charles, and the List -
I agree in this discussion rather with Matthew (if I need to
agree
with somebody) but I think that the discussion is to some
extent
misplaced.
- as Pale Fire (the poem) is an integral part of the novel, it
is
subject to requirements of the composition - if
it would be too good as
poetry, it would destroy the whole.
Shakespeare didn't include his best
sonnets or poems in the plays.
- 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?
Best regards,
Sergei