Comments on: The Nude Formalism http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/12/the-nude-formalism/ A blog from the Poetry Foundation where contemporary poets debate classic and contemporary poetry from America and around the world. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:13:40 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mark Jarman http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/12/the-nude-formalism/#comment-15405 Mark Jarman Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:14:48 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=556#comment-15405 Well, I've come to this conversation very late, and I have responded to Joseph Duemer's accusations some time ago in another context. I think Alicia Stallings has done an excellent job of responding to Christian Bok and, slyly, to Charles Bernstein (recently referred to as one of the Languish Poets, a term to cherish). I simply wish to clarify the stance of The Reaper, the magazine Robert McDowell and I edited in the 1980's. Duemer has referred to the magazine as culturally conservative and anti-modernist. The only modernist The Reaper criticized, in an essay called "Wallace Stevens, What's He Done?," was the eponymous Wallace Stevens. The only modernist The Reaper championed was Robert Frost, in an essay called "The Elephant Man of Poetry." Any examination of the politics of these two giants of American modernism will not discover the sort of engagement with the progressive thought of their times, which W. H. Auden claimed was necessary for a great poet (in his essay about Yeats). Both Frost and Stevens, like Yeats, were politically reactionary, although Frost from this vantage point might seem to have had a more coherent political philosophy than Stevens. And yet both Frost and Stevens were great modern innovators in poetry. To call Modernism one thing, culturally, aesthetically, or in any other way, is to promote a limited agenda. Here's an interesting political side bar: during World War II, when Louis Untermeyer pressed Robert Frost to join in writing propaganda for the war effort, Frost refused. He wasn't going to put his art at the service of any political agenda, even one he believed in. Modernism can hardly be considered monolithic, making it somewhat improbable that anyone could be, as Duemer claims, "anti-modernist." As for being culturally conservative, really, few of the great Modernists (and you can take your pick here) could be considered anything but. Well, I’ve come to this conversation very late, and I have responded to Joseph Duemer’s accusations some time ago in another context. I think Alicia Stallings has done an excellent job of responding to Christian Bok and, slyly, to Charles Bernstein (recently referred to as one of the Languish Poets, a term to cherish). I simply wish to clarify the stance of The Reaper, the magazine Robert McDowell and I edited in the 1980’s. Duemer has referred to the magazine as culturally conservative and anti-modernist. The only modernist The Reaper criticized, in an essay called “Wallace Stevens, What’s He Done?,” was the eponymous Wallace Stevens. The only modernist The Reaper championed was Robert Frost, in an essay called “The Elephant Man of Poetry.” Any examination of the politics of these two giants of American modernism will not discover the sort of engagement with the progressive thought of their times, which W. H. Auden claimed was necessary for a great poet (in his essay about Yeats). Both Frost and Stevens, like Yeats, were politically reactionary, although Frost from this vantage point might seem to have had a more coherent political philosophy than Stevens. And yet both Frost and Stevens were great modern innovators in poetry. To call Modernism one thing, culturally, aesthetically, or in any other way, is to promote a limited agenda. Here’s an interesting political side bar: during World War II, when Louis Untermeyer pressed Robert Frost to join in writing propaganda for the war effort, Frost refused. He wasn’t going to put his art at the service of any political agenda, even one he believed in.

Modernism can hardly be considered monolithic, making it somewhat improbable that anyone could be, as Duemer claims, “anti-modernist.” As for being culturally conservative, really, few of the great Modernists (and you can take your pick here) could be considered anything but.

]]> By: Joseph Duemer http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/12/the-nude-formalism/#comment-1941 Joseph Duemer Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:11:35 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=556#comment-1941 Mark Jarman can say what he will, but the New Formalism & the New Narrative (the specific program of <i>The Reaper</i>) were tightly entwined. Anyone who doubts this should look at the list of faculty at the West Chester Poetry Conference (see Wikipedia, West Chester Conference). Both movements were culturally conservative in the way Christian Bok enumerates above, and both were anti-modernist. Mark Jarman can say what he will, but the New Formalism & the New Narrative (the specific program of The Reaper) were tightly entwined. Anyone who doubts this should look at the list of faculty at the West Chester Poetry Conference (see Wikipedia, West Chester Conference). Both movements were culturally conservative in the way Christian Bok enumerates above, and both were anti-modernist.

]]> By: Don Share http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/12/the-nude-formalism/#comment-1940 Don Share Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:09:17 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=556#comment-1940 This just in: Mark Jarman has commented on Corn's blog thusly: "Dear Alfred, Neither Robert McDowell nor I was arguing the New Formalist line in the early 1980's. In the magazine we edited, The Reaper, we argued for narrative and published poems in all sorts of modes and styles." Mr. Corn acknowledged the error. While I'm addendumbing, let me add another 2 extracts: "Now for “Formalism.” The term was first used by Roman Jakobson around 1915 to describe a critical method devised to apply to Russian poetry of the time. The method placed little or no emphasis on content; its main concern was form—sound, rhythm, diction, syntax, and tone. Literary language was viewed as having a purely literary purpose, not with communicating psychological, social or philosophical truth. So why use the term “Formalist” to describe some poets merely because their resources include meter and rhyme?" & "...there’s no intrinsic connection (as is sometimes claimed) between traditional prosody and right-wing politics, witness Bertolt Brecht, Auden, Rukeyser, Brooks, Lowell, Walcott, Heaney, Hacker, Rafael Campo, and Reginald Shepherd." Discussion? This just in: Mark Jarman has commented on Corn’s blog thusly:
“Dear Alfred,
Neither Robert McDowell nor I was arguing the New Formalist line in the early 1980’s. In the magazine we edited, The Reaper, we argued for narrative and published poems in all sorts of modes and styles.”
Mr. Corn acknowledged the error.
While I’m addendumbing, let me add another 2 extracts:
“Now for “Formalism.” The term was first used by Roman Jakobson around 1915 to describe a critical method devised to apply to Russian poetry of the time. The method placed little or no emphasis on content; its main concern was form—sound, rhythm, diction, syntax, and tone. Literary language was viewed as having a purely literary purpose, not with communicating psychological, social or philosophical truth. So why use the term “Formalist” to describe some poets merely because their resources include meter and rhyme?”
&
“…there’s no intrinsic connection (as is sometimes claimed) between traditional prosody and right-wing politics, witness Bertolt Brecht, Auden, Rukeyser, Brooks, Lowell, Walcott, Heaney, Hacker, Rafael Campo, and Reginald Shepherd.”
Discussion?

]]> By: Don Share http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/12/the-nude-formalism/#comment-1939 Don Share Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:02:33 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=556#comment-1939 Anybody catch <a href="http://alfredcornsweblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-formalism-misnomer.html" rel="nofollow">Alfred Corn's blog about the "new formalism"</a>?? Excerpt: <i>There’s a review in the Sunday Times Book Review today of Mary Jo Salter’s new and selected poems (A Phone Call to the Future), written by James Longenbach. The review is titled “Formalities,” and Longenbach does what reviewers always do when dealing with this poet. Once again he brings up the tired issue of the so-called “New Formalism,” as somehow being the key issue where Salter’s poetry is concerned. It’s not a tack anyone takes when discussing the work, for example, of Paul Muldoon, who has used meter, rhyme, and verseform almost from the beginning of his career. Anyway, Salter was not one of the original group (Mark Jarman, Robert McDowell, Dana Gioia, Charles Martin, and R.S. Gwynn) who launched a campaign in the early 80s to revive the use of meter and rhyme in American poetry. Nor did the group call themselves the “New Formalists.” The term was devised by Ariel Dawson in an article unfavorable to the movement, published in 1984 in the AWP Newsletter. Anyone who now uses meter and rhyme, whether or not included in any anthologies put together by members of this movement, is likely to be called “a New Formalist” or at least a “formalist.” The term is inaccurate on several counts. Begin with the “New.” The adjective suggests that no poet used meter and rhyme between the years 1922, say, when The Waste Land was published, and 1982, when the movement began...</i> Anybody catch Alfred Corn’s blog about the “new formalism”?? Excerpt:
There’s a review in the Sunday Times Book Review today of Mary Jo Salter’s new and selected poems (A Phone Call to the Future), written by James Longenbach. The review is titled “Formalities,” and Longenbach does what reviewers always do when dealing with this poet. Once again he brings up the tired issue of the so-called “New Formalism,” as somehow being the key issue where Salter’s poetry is concerned. It’s not a tack anyone takes when discussing the work, for example, of Paul Muldoon, who has used meter, rhyme, and verseform almost from the beginning of his career. Anyway, Salter was not one of the original group (Mark Jarman, Robert McDowell, Dana Gioia, Charles Martin, and R.S. Gwynn) who launched a campaign in the early 80s to revive the use of meter and rhyme in American poetry. Nor did the group call themselves the “New Formalists.” The term was devised by Ariel Dawson in an article unfavorable to the movement, published in 1984 in the AWP Newsletter. Anyone who now uses meter and rhyme, whether or not included in any anthologies put together by members of this movement, is likely to be called “a New Formalist” or at least a “formalist.” The term is inaccurate on several counts. Begin with the “New.” The adjective suggests that no poet used meter and rhyme between the years 1922, say, when The Waste Land was published, and 1982, when the movement began…

]]> By: Alicia (AE) http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/12/the-nude-formalism/#comment-1938 Alicia (AE) Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:41:40 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=556#comment-1938 Well, I have to say, it would be much more fun to be known as a "Nude Formalist" than a "New Formalist"! I think Steve is right though that first it might be good to establish just who these New Formalists are--to name names, journals, instances. "Formalists" come in all political stripes, of course. Dave Mason's verse-novel <i>Ludlow</i> illuminates a tragic historical moment in America's labor struggle. Well, I suppose that isn't the kind of politics you mean, but nonetheless... Actually, I think the avant-garde, at least as I understand its use here, and formalism have a lot of grounds for conversation. You yourself, Christian, have brought up numerous instances of the avant-garde's use of the I'm-not-dead-yet-Sonnet. And as for Oulipo-ian experiments, I think they should certainly be of interest to formalists, and perhaps it is a shame they are not more discussed in those circles. Although I am outside academia and don't hold a teaching post, I do teach a three-week poetry seminar in the summer on the island of Spetses. It's three intensive weeks, and we do many things, including read the Odyssey. But I "assign" a different form every day, and they are not all what you would call "formalist" forms--we look at abecdarians and pangrams, riddles, syllabics, ghazals. I'm not sure whether Ashbery counts as avant garde or not--I'm guessing not here--but I teach a number of his poems in form courses: pantoums, sestinas, sonnets. I tend to present them first without telling the students who the poet is, since I think some people are afraid of Ashbery and seize up rather than really try to read and enjoy the poems on their own terms. It is interesting to me that the avant-garde is interested in playing with things like sound and pattern--yes, even rhyme!--even if to be satirical (but at least Bernstein can pull off a sonnet, and make it rhyme and scan too--with some terrific rhymes like "clang" and "harangue" and "carousel" and "scrawl"), effects largely eschewed by the mainstream of American free verse, perhaps because artifice is supposed to conflict with authenticity of utterance and sincerity (a hold-over from our Puritan roots?). I don't buy that argument--though it is millennia old--but I think one thing the avant garde and formalism have in common is an interest in and exploration of artifice, and artifice as a way <i>towards</i> authenticity. I guess where I seriously differ is in phrases like "advances" of Oulipoism. There are innovations in art, sure, but "advances" imply that arts are in a state of evolution towards something better, it is a metaphor from the sciences that is in my opinion misapplied. It is arguably even hubristic. Art changes, it <i>must<i> change, it innovates, there are revolutions and reactions, and greatness can occur at any point along the continuum. But have we <i>improved</i> on Homer? Are we more <i>advanced</i>? </i></i> Well, I have to say, it would be much more fun to be known as a “Nude Formalist” than a “New Formalist”!
I think Steve is right though that first it might be good to establish just who these New Formalists are–to name names, journals, instances. “Formalists” come in all political stripes, of course. Dave Mason’s verse-novel Ludlow illuminates a tragic historical moment in America’s labor struggle. Well, I suppose that isn’t the kind of politics you mean, but nonetheless…
Actually, I think the avant-garde, at least as I understand its use here, and formalism have a lot of grounds for conversation. You yourself, Christian, have brought up numerous instances of the avant-garde’s use of the I’m-not-dead-yet-Sonnet. And as for Oulipo-ian experiments, I think they should certainly be of interest to formalists, and perhaps it is a shame they are not more discussed in those circles. Although I am outside academia and don’t hold a teaching post, I do teach a three-week poetry seminar in the summer on the island of Spetses. It’s three intensive weeks, and we do many things, including read the Odyssey. But I “assign” a different form every day, and they are not all what you would call “formalist” forms–we look at abecdarians and pangrams, riddles, syllabics, ghazals. I’m not sure whether Ashbery counts as avant garde or not–I’m guessing not here–but I teach a number of his poems in form courses: pantoums, sestinas, sonnets. I tend to present them first without telling the students who the poet is, since I think some people are afraid of Ashbery and seize up rather than really try to read and enjoy the poems on their own terms.
It is interesting to me that the avant-garde is interested in playing with things like sound and pattern–yes, even rhyme!–even if to be satirical (but at least Bernstein can pull off a sonnet, and make it rhyme and scan too–with some terrific rhymes like “clang” and “harangue” and “carousel” and “scrawl”), effects largely eschewed by the mainstream of American free verse, perhaps because artifice is supposed to conflict with authenticity of utterance and sincerity (a hold-over from our Puritan roots?). I don’t buy that argument–though it is millennia old–but I think one thing the avant garde and formalism have in common is an interest in and exploration of artifice, and artifice as a way towards authenticity.
I guess where I seriously differ is in phrases like “advances” of Oulipoism. There are innovations in art, sure, but “advances” imply that arts are in a state of evolution towards something better, it is a metaphor from the sciences that is in my opinion misapplied. It is arguably even hubristic. Art changes, it must change, it innovates, there are revolutions and reactions, and greatness can occur at any point along the continuum. But have we improved on Homer? Are we more advanced?

]]> By: Don Share http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/12/the-nude-formalism/#comment-1937 Don Share Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:01:30 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=556#comment-1937 I like these better, by George Starbuck (even if I risk Ron Silliman's saying that G.S. is the only vispo we know here); the first is one of his "space-saver sonnets"- My Mistress' Eyes Are Nothing Yes, Per- fes- ser, snow no doubt out- does her et- cet- er- as. and: Sonnet with a Different Letter at the End of Every Line O for a muse of fire, a sack of dough, Or both! O promissory notes of woe! One time in Santa Fe N.M. Ol' Winfield Townley Scott and I ... But whoa. One can exert oneself, ff , Or architect a heaven like Rimbaud, Or if that seems, how shall I say, de trop , One can at least write sonnets, a propos Of nothing save the do-re-mi-fa-sol Of poetry itself. Is not the row Of perfect rhymes, the terminal bon mot, Obeisance enough to the Great O? "Observe," said Chairman Mao to Premier Chou, "On voyage à Parnasse pour prendre les eaux. On voyage comme poisson, incog." I can't format it properly here, but check out, just in time for the holidays, <a href="http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=23321" rel="nofollow">Sonnet in the Shape of a Potted Christmas Tree</a>. Incredible as it may seem, Jane (see the <a href="http://poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/11/why_no_one_wants_to_be_a_new_f_1.html#33" rel="nofollow">neo-formalist thread</a>) and I both were lucky enough to have had Starbuck as our mentors. I like these better, by George Starbuck (even if I risk Ron Silliman’s saying that G.S. is the only vispo we know here); the first is one of his “space-saver sonnets”-
My Mistress’ Eyes Are Nothing
Yes,
Per-
fes-
ser,
snow
no
doubt
out-
does
her
et-
cet-
er-
as.
and:
Sonnet with a Different Letter at the End of Every Line
O for a muse of fire, a sack of dough,
Or both! O promissory notes of woe!
One time in Santa Fe N.M.
Ol’ Winfield Townley Scott and I … But whoa.
One can exert oneself, ff ,
Or architect a heaven like Rimbaud,
Or if that seems, how shall I say, de trop ,
One can at least write sonnets, a propos
Of nothing save the do-re-mi-fa-sol
Of poetry itself. Is not the row
Of perfect rhymes, the terminal bon mot,
Obeisance enough to the Great O?
“Observe,” said Chairman Mao to Premier Chou,
“On voyage à Parnasse pour prendre les eaux.
On voyage comme poisson, incog.”
I can’t format it properly here, but check out, just in time for the holidays, Sonnet in the Shape of a Potted Christmas Tree.
Incredible as it may seem, Jane (see the neo-formalist thread) and I both were lucky enough to have had Starbuck as our mentors.

]]> By: Joseph Hutchison http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/12/the-nude-formalism/#comment-1936 Joseph Hutchison Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:00:02 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=556#comment-1936 So Mr. Bernstein "denudes" formalist poems of their content. Can contentless verse rise to the level of satire? Can it rise to the level of readability? (By "readability" I mean that quality that makes one want to read it.) Based on this excerpt, I'd argue no in both cases—although evidently Mr. Bök wants to read this stuff, so he is certainly entitled to claim that it satirizes by the very fact that its content is absent. But I can't see how this excerpt says anything at all about the social agenda of American Formalist verse, especially in contrast with Russian Formalist verse; this is an amusing case of "reading into," which is seems to be a preoccupation of academics and novice readers alike. (I once had a student tell me—and I kid you not: "I don't care what the words mean; I know what I <i>think they mean.") The need to "read into" is unsurprising, of course: a "social agenda" is at least as absent from L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E school poetry as it is from the New Formalist verse Mr. Bök derides.</i> So Mr. Bernstein “denudes” formalist poems of their content. Can contentless verse rise to the level of satire? Can it rise to the level of readability? (By “readability” I mean that quality that makes one want to read it.) Based on this excerpt, I’d argue no in both cases—although evidently Mr. Bök wants to read this stuff, so he is certainly entitled to claim that it satirizes by the very fact that its content is absent. But I can’t see how this excerpt says anything at all about the social agenda of American Formalist verse, especially in contrast with Russian Formalist verse; this is an amusing case of “reading into,” which is seems to be a preoccupation of academics and novice readers alike. (I once had a student tell me—and I kid you not: “I don’t care what the words mean; I know what I think they mean.”) The need to “read into” is unsurprising, of course: a “social agenda” is at least as absent from L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E school poetry as it is from the New Formalist verse Mr. Bök derides.

]]> By: Steve http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/12/the-nude-formalism/#comment-1935 Steve Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:31:42 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=556#comment-1935 Christian, can you name more than one of the New Formalists (that is, the critics or thinkers about poetry) whose beliefs (at their worst, as you say-- and I agree that those wd be wrong beliefs) you describe? Christian, can you name more than one of the New Formalists (that is, the critics or thinkers about poetry) whose beliefs (at their worst, as you say– and I agree that those wd be wrong beliefs) you describe?

]]>