>
> I want to know why in the pantheon of modern poetry that it can no longer
> rhyme.  Why can it no longer have a pulsating rhythm that seizes you and
> rushes you headlong down its slopes of meaning?  It's like mountain ski
> trails...lots of different paths down the slope.  I like modern poetry,
> it's fresh and I love the multitude of meaning that the reader can bring
> into it, yet it also seems to me that the historical traditions have been
> completely abandoned.

Too broad a generalization- Many "modern" poets, starting with Yeats,
Pound,Eliot, Auden, Stevens and Milley wrote  rhymed verse and otherwise
adhered to traditional prosody, when they felt it suited the needs of their
expression. And many of the more important poets since their time have
continued to do so. The historical traditions have by no means been
completely abandoned.

But to address the why of common abandonment of rigid formal structures in
poetry would be a huge undertaking, and one that could only be understood
with reference to a similar move in all the other arts in the 20th cent.
Want to make it a thread?
>
> And I see the same problems with preservation in the way that our field
has
> iconized certain standards of purity and correctness that the general
> public "just doesn't get."

Seems like the opposite to me. Among my preservationist colleagues their
adherence to "standards of purity and correctness" is a mind-set that is
anti-modernist. For them the equivalent of free verse is the modern kitchen
and  bathroom and there is just no comfort  for them in dealing with it in
their rigid formalist approach to the structures they deal with. Of course,
I'm talking about preservation and restoration of, mostly, residential
structures of the late 18th, early 19th Cents.


> Who's fault is it that the public feels this way?  I say that it is ours.
> I return to my premise of transporting the public with our vision of the
> future.  Note that I am coming from the point of view of administering a
> local preservation program, dealing with thousands of buildings where
> regular folks live carrying out their lives in nice neighborhoods and
> business areas; not the preservation necessities of conserving National
> Historic Landmarks.  Yet persons in the field often seek to apply the
same
> standards in both arenas.

Bravo- But can you articulate a theory of modern adaptation congruent with
preservation and restoration in communities like your's? I can't.

A friend of mine, a couple of years ago, moved a 1760's cape onto his
client's property and restored it with near-perfect fealty to its original
condition (The only apparent departure is electric wiring). All mod cons
were placed in an addition designed to look like a typical N.E. ell. I did
paint restoration work in the house and so spent a good deal of time in it.
I found it to be one of the spookiest environments I have ever visited. I
kept thinking to myself that anyone shuffling between the two haves of the
residence was bound to end up with bi-polar disorder.
>
> We have not made the case to the public that these resources are all
worthy
> of our wizardry in minutiae.  I believe that any place that you see a
> historic preservation program politically dismantled is a place where the
> servants of preservation failed to serve the prevailing community
> standards.  I can tell you that the preservation standards that one can
> apply in Charleston SC without having the public rebel are very different
> from those that you can apply in Raleigh NC.  And if you try to be a lone
> ranger, you'll get shot out of the saddle.  And then who will speak for
the
> buildings and gravel roads?  Pick your battles carefully.  Conserve your
> resources for the big ones.  For the rest, you need to slowly raise the
> awareness of the community to appreciate the value of preservation in
their
> future.  You will lose some, guaranteed.  Bruce, make sure that everyone
in
> town understands what the gravel road means, make sure they get a chance
to
> see it before it changes, give them a benchmark.  Let them experience its
> poetry.  When the deal has been done, take 'em back.  Don't preach, just
> let them feel the place, afterward.

My sentiments exactly, and how I have usually operated, a sort of
don't-shove-it-down-their-throats-until-you-have-gotten-them-to-open-wide
approach. Not at all the tact that my friends chose. When we stopped the
building of a local by-pass, an effort that began with very little support,
we did it by spending a year educating our communities about the
inter-relatedness of transportation infrastructure with development,
environmental, preservation, and life-style issues.

On the other hand, sometimes the only way to fight the beast to a
compromise is for someone to be a sacrificial radical, making a strong but
frightening case for an extreme and unpalatable solution which moves the
issue and creates a climate in which something less than ideal but more
than nothing gets done. Not a tactic to use often, but sometimes necessary.


snip-
>
> >>  First, as with preservation, we need to get poetry back on the
psychic map.
> > Yes, now, for a serious question. How does this dialogue on poetry
relate to
> > historic preservation?
>
> Quick answer: they both provide an embodiment of meaning for the human
> experience.  Both are steeply couched in cultural association.  Both
> require feeling for understanding.  Both transport us to places we have
> never been.

Another take-

They both deal with the possibilities of structure and the need to make
choices. And to arrive at some conclusion about how and when to adopt
traditional forms to modern needs and sensibilities.

Bruce