A great deal of 19th century verse is wretched—exposure to poorly written rhyme will naturally push the educated poetry lover from the vales of tortured song to the stairwells of sober speech.
Verse was abandoned by educated poets in the 20th century because the versifiers fell out of tune—not because poetry evolved into something higher.
Frazzled, goaded and tuckered out by Frederick Goddard Tuckerman, with no more heart for Bret Harte, audiences everywhere cried Geez! and So Long! to George Santayana and the other thousand rhyming and chiming poetasters, tossing the simpering, milk & water verse out the window. (Santayana was T.S. Eliot’s professor at Harvard).
Throwing off rhyme was not a revolution.
It was a revulsion.
The yellowish face of Imagism’s moon was not a sign of mystical glory; it was a sign of illness and disgust.
Music coming from instruments only a little out of tune will soon convince hearers to give up all music.
Imagism was a retreat, not an advance.
Poetry in the 20th century did not add image—it subtracted music.
The great poets of verse featured imagery and music, skillfully blended into a natural, pleasing speech so that neither speech, imagery, nor music was perceived as such–the elements were blended and lost in the poetry.
Lost so that no ‘close reading’ can get it out.
Criticism finds the elements when they are not blended; if they are, criticism cannot see them, for the work succeeds and doesn’t require criticism.
The close reading of the New Critics was mistaken from the start, since it confused desultory, over-elaborated praise with criticism. New Criticism finally ends in the Prozac Criticism of the Helen Vendlers and the Stephen Burts.
Too much focus on any part—image, language, irony, etc—is a sure sign poetry is in decline.
We’re not sure why–after the renaissance of verse in English from the 16th century sonnet mastery to the 17th century of Milton, Donne, Marvel, to the 18th of Pope, and then Burns, Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, Byron, Coleridge, with writers like Poe bringing Baconic science (with a Platonic sheen) to the art, and Tennyson carrying the flame–why the whole art sickened and died sometime during the middle or latter part of the 19th century.
It may have been for a very simple reason.
In the 19th century more people began to write and publish poetry.
There was a glut, and gluts will destroy whatever style currently exists.
Those who complain contemporary poetry is prosy and dull usually champion the 19th century and its rhyme.
But the issue is not a stylistic one. It is simpler than that. A glut destroyed poetry as it currently existed—first in the 19th century, when poetry rhymed, and then in the 20th century, when poetry didn’t. The Quarterly didn’t kill Keats. Sidney Lanier did.
Those who could not write like Keats eventually decided no one should write like Keats—or none should try, because one more Sidney Lanier would be the death of poetry itself. William Carlos Williams—when he reached middle-age and stopped rhyming—suddenly became vastly preferable to Sidney Lanier, at least among educated readers.
Poetry–the art–could not handle one more failed Keats. William Carlos Williams did not conquer Keats. He was simply a sobering balm to the intoxicating pain of Frederick Goddard Tuckerman. The 20th century stopped rhyming, not out of evolution, but from embarrassment.
Rather than fail at Keats, it was necessary for the pride of the poet in the 20th century to partially succeed at haiku—and the whole history of modernism is nothing but extended haiku: even modern long poems are nothing but haiku patched together and embellished with flotsam and dialogue–breaking haiku’s rules, but not the rules of poetry—in any significant way.
Our idea is supported by the following: From the beginnings of poetry in English to the first confirmed glut in the early 19th century, a good poem was never a theoretical specimen; it was good in a way that was socially recognized by everyone: A 16th century Shakespeare song, a 19th century Keats ballad. Then came the glut, and millions of would-be Shakespeares and Keats’s made rhyme come to seem the playing of an out-of-tune violin.
The public gradually fled from the poem–not because the novel took them away, but because the public ran from the art of poetry holding its ears. The modern novel was not an improvement so much as a refuge, and fortunately for that genre, poetry, by mishandling verse, was at that very moment chasing away readers as it had never done before.
And bad rhyme did not end after Modernism–one can find it in Richard Aldington’s 1941 anthology: Allen Tate, William Carlos Williams’ only poem represented is a rhyming poem; there’s bad rhyme galore.
Fashions die hard, but when they die, it’s sometimes not the fashion that’s at fault, but the mediocrities practicing it.