Comments on: A Conservative Journey Through Literary America – Part 4: The New Formalism

By: Mike Kriskey

Mike Kriskey — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:50:21 +0000

Ignore brucelee, Matt. This series keeps me coming back here. (Along with Prelutsky, Schizoid Mann, and Stage Right.)

By: brucelee

brucelee — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:44:18 +0000

What is the point of this series of articles? Is it that intellectuals are good at tying themselves up in illusionary knots?

Seriously, you need a real day job or all of this cheap philosophy will make your crazy.

If you want to be a writer, just write.

By: Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Monday Highlights

Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Monday Highlights — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:00:01 +0000

[...] Art and the left. [...]

By: Stergeye

Stergeye — Mon, 25 May 2009 06:28:31 +0000

Nothing is more enslaving than the absolute lack of boundaries.

By: AndrewPrice

AndrewPrice — Mon, 25 May 2009 04:48:52 +0000

I remember hearing that. Great book. . . artfully written. . . nuanced themes. . . extremely popular. . . stands the test of time — couldn't be "good" literature.

At least the people at large know what they are talking about, even if the experts don't. Good art has a way of standing the test of time, crud is soon forgotten.

By: bobbezz

bobbezz — Mon, 25 May 2009 04:21:35 +0000

I would like to thank Mr. Patterson and all those who have commented for an absolutely wonderful discussion! Poetry is much like a watch if all the parts fit it TICS!

By: Mike Kriskey

Mike Kriskey — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:47:28 +0000

"Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down." – Robert Frost, 1935

There was a time in America where you'd have a poet like Robert Frost on The Tonight Show, and nobody thought that was odd, because nobody thought poetry was particularly highbrow. It seems to me that critics of neo-formalism are actually afraid of poetry becoming popular again, for fear they'd be exposed as untalented.

By: Mike Kriskey

Mike Kriskey — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:40:29 +0000

How about classifying literature this way: popularity that lasts across generations? Twenty years from now, no one will remember "The Da Vinci Code." If you take a look at old best-seller lists, they're full of authors nobody remembers.

Of course, this method would leave out James Joyce and Marcel Proust. So that's another benefit.

By: Mike Kriskey

Mike Kriskey — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:34:56 +0000

I remember the collective case of the vapors of critics in Britain when the British people voted "The Lord of the Rings" the greatest novel of the 20th century.

By: Mike Kriskey

Mike Kriskey — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:32:30 +0000

I did some extensive digging, and managed to turn up a quote from "someone who even so much as insinuates that formalism, rhyme, or structure in poetry is somehow tantamount to racism." I found it at the top of the comment you were responding to.

"Although it may cause discomfort to neo-conservatives, we live in a world of many cultures, many voices; our poetries are enriched by otherness."

Now what Sadoff is saying here, is that "we live in a world of many cultures." He also points out that this "may cause discomfort to neo-conservatives," which is both a shot at Robert Richman, who is both a conservative and a neo-formalist, and a silly attempt to conflate neo-conservativism with neo-formalism (presumably because they share the same prefix).

With me so far? Okay. When Sadoff says that neo-conservatives, and therefore neo-formalists, are uncomfortable living in a world of many cultures, he is actually insinuating that this is due to xenophobia and racism. Honest. He is.