Skip to main content

A Look Backwards

I've always felt that the best piece of advice that is always given to writers is to read as much as you possibly can, in as great a breadth as you possibly can. The more exposure you get to differing styles and voices, nevermind the appreciation and knowledge of history that comes with it, provides endless inspiration and direction for your own work. The modernists and post-modernists are innovative beyond belief. Read e.e. cummings and compare him to the poets who came before and afterwards. It's quite possible that he's been a more influential figure for poetry than Shakespeare. Before that, Byron and Tennyson show what can be accomplished through formal poetry, and if you're looking for satire, Swift is the master (and has been for centuries). And as much as cummings may have changed the poetic landscape entirely, it's impossible to overstate the impact the Renaissance had upon literature.

What fascinates me, as I look backwards for my own inspiration, is how the two most significant changes in literature (the Renaissance and modernism, in my opinion) came about from a rediscovery of the importance of the writing of earlier times. For the Renaissance, this meant rediscovering Plato and Aristotle, as well as Homer, Virgil, Ovid, etc. Suddenly the themes were no longer solely Christian; there were a multitude of sources upon which to draw for inspiration. Modernism also looked back to the Greeks and Romans, but through Ezra Pound in particular, medieval Chinese poetry and the French troubadours opened new avenues of expression (the medieval Chinese poetry helping to form his ideas around Imagism for example).

What else will come from the past to change literature today? Will the Americas' myths inform our writing more fully? With the explosion of fantasy, will medieval epics be rewritten in modern styles? What's next?

Comments

  1. Connected to this is the problem of the new. As in, how do we are writers in 2010 produce something "new"? e.e.cummings is an interesting example, even just in terms of his formal move to lower-case expression. This has been copied endlessly, and often contributes nothing new or meaningful to the copyists' work; it just looks cool. In terms of what's next, I'm pretty sure no one's going to read that questions and say, "Hey! I know what's next! Its _______!" I think all we can do is ask questions like we have been on this blog that get at the impetus of writing. I think the question of what's next for us writing in the present moment ties in very closely with how literature and writing are being positioned/minimized/degraded/disseminated in the world's various cultures more generally. Because "artsy" writing seems so liminal in a lot of ways to the consciousness of everyday people, I think one solution is to do what The Writers Block and Oral Tradition strive for: to only publish writing that makes an impact on the reader, whatever this impact ends up looking like. For me, that's what's next. But I don't think this writing will end up unifying itself as neatly as writing in the Renaissance or Imagism, for example. I think its power lies in its diversity and ecclecticism.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Three Guidelines

In an attempt to begin articulating what effective writing looks like at the present moment, Teilo and I have formulated three basic guidelines. They're meant to start a conversation more than anything, and are not meant to be overly prescriptive. However, we feel that following them as closely as possible will eliminate many of the weaknesses we have observed in the writing submitted to our respective literary magazines. In no particular order, they are: - Subjectivity, as far as it illuminates common experience, can be more effective than objectivity. - Intertextuality can be an addition, but never the crux. - The form of a work of art should never become its content. Please feel free to comment. Both affirmation and disagreement are necessary cogs in the engine of any progression.

Beyond Immediacy

The closing sentence of your last post, Teilo, suggests that art doesn’t have to be as careful nowadays as it has been in times past. Is sloppy art the answer to sloppy communication? Is a plurality of art forms the answer to a plurality of communication modes? This type of art exists – in the form of fictional msn conversations, blog novels, etc. – and I think there is value to it, but I don’t understand why the thoughts of the modernists (or whoever) are “worse than meaningless.” I don’t think we’re really “reacting to” the modernists anymore either—although it’s impossible to quantify what “reacting to” even means—but we’re definitely influenced by them. What I had in mind by pointing back to Imagism was to glean some of that movement’s aesthetic principles, in addition to adding principles of our own. In this way perhaps the strongest aspects of that movement can be adapted to fit our needs of expression in the 21 st Century. And the general thrust of my argument is not fixated o

Manuscript Issue

It's been awhile since my last post, but now that it's summer I've been reinvigorated to come back to the magazine and the blog. To shake the dust off, I want to give a brief glimpse into the direction The Writers Block is headed: The next issue is going to be a tribute to and exploration of the relationship between handwriting and poetic composition. Until July 1st, the Block is accepting submissions for a poetry-only manuscript issue of handwritten and/or hand-illustrated poems in digitized, scanned, or photographed formats. I'm interested to see what sort of submissions will come in. I've tried to phrase the call specifically enough to communicate clearly what I'm looking for, while leaving it ambiguous enough to ensure a plurality of submissions. The inspiration for the call came out of my research on e-books, and how emerging literary technologies are changing the way we read and experience older printed and hand-written texts. Both print and digitizati