The fortunes of formalism by David Yezzi

The New Criterion has an article that looks at poetry, then and now:

Today, as I have said, it is not necessary to understand prosody at all in order to write a successful poem in English or to be a successful poet. Still, I can’t help wondering if the art isn’t made poorer by contemporary poets’ self-assured disregard of traditional verse technique. As Brander Matthews himself once famously said: “A gentleman need not know Latin, but he should have at least forgotten it.” Prosody is not far behind Latin in terms of its obsolescence, even within the specialized discipline of poetry. And this goes for readers and critics, as well as for poets.

Nestled in the discussion is this point:

Here’s a quick test for readers of poetry. Of the poems you can recite by heart, how many are in free verse and how many are in meter and rhyme? To revise Donald Justice’s formulation above, surely nine-tenths of the poems committed to memory last night and every night for millennia must have been in some kind of metered verse.

Is he right? Is there disconnect between what's being taught to would-be poets, and what readers cherish?

Just to be contrary here - I wonder, will the current generation turn the tide, perhaps? I think I sniff a growing love of Latin, in general. In addition, we have a friend whose son wants to teach English - but from a classics standpoint. He hasn't found a university that teaches literature how he wants, but he's looking. Is there any corresponding movement (assuming a minor rebirth in both Latin and literature), is there any sign of people wanting to rekindle the art of appreciating formal verse?

Perhaps I can answer that, at least in a small way. I sometimes get courses from The Teaching Company (www.teach12.com). Their catalogs don't skimp on literature and poetry offerings. In other words, people are making their living selling what educational elites often sneer at as outmoded. I find hope in that. The major universities might be in danger of losing influence, but people still crave great wordsmithing and time-tested insights enough to shell out hard-earned money to broaden their knowledge and deepen their understanding of classic writing.

And on some of the blogs I like to visit, such as Wittingshire, the most popular posts often feature formal poetry.

Maybe Yezzi spends too much time with people who consider themselves ultra-sophisticated. Maybe it's not quite as bad as he thinks - although, on second thought, without formal training being offered at universities, maybe things aren't as good as I like to think. Anybody can pour words out. But formal verse must be learned one way or another.

Hmmm. Jury's still out on this one, as far as I'm concerned.

Yezzi's article covers a lot of ground. If you love good formal verse, it's a little discouraging, I guess you could say. But it is interesting. (Use title link.)

UPDATE: Amanda Witt has linked to this and discusses it in a post called The State of Poetry.