Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:56:40 -0500 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 04:28 PM 3/22/02 -0800, you wrote:
>At 05:20 PM 22/03/02 -0500, R.Gancie/C.Parcelli wrote:
> >There's a certain desperation in the Neo-Formalist camp that
> >is akin to the Langpos. They want acceptance at the
> >imaginative level but they have produced no viable canon of
> >work.
>
>There are of course very fine living poets who write
>(at least occasionally) in formal structure: Vikram
>Seth and Derek Walcott come to mind. I'm not aware
>of any instances of these artists expressing an opinion
>that they have a monopoly on the One True Form, nor
>are they prone to fling epithets such as "degeneracy".
>
>There's a lesson here. -Tim
I wouldn't consider Vikram Seth a very fine poet. The formalism we find in
Golden Gate gets very tired after awhile. I think what Carlo might be
saying is if you want to read some imaginative work, why read Seth (the
neo-formalist) when you can read Pushkin? I mean, Golden Gate is nothing
more than a bad knock-off? And, Seth even says as much half-way through the
thing. He tips his hat Onegin-way.
I won't argue Walcott.
Add the recently departed Agha Shahid Ali--a fine 'neo-formalist,' who
ended up there through a sort of organic development. It wasn't a conceit
on his part, at least in my opinion.
|
|
|