Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:24:21 -0400 (EDT) 88'ers: Daniel (de_scott@acad.FandM.edu), in his fine contribution to this discussion of premodern American style, helpfully added the element of personal taste. "Personally," he wrote, "I like the Victorian style because I see the beauty in their words." I suppose it should not go without saying that personal preference is crucial and perfectly legitimate here, in appreciating poetry and in all our discussions--even those that aspire to the purely critical or analytical. For the moment I'm interested in saying just this: William Carlos Williams is going to be the most prominent and passionate advocate of modernism on the principle that words are *not* beautiful things or beautiful thoughts... they're words! and poems are not natural features of life and landscape.... they're words; they're made; they're CONSTRUCTED! Poems are made of bits of alphabet. So (I'm kidding here....) it's Bill Williams versus Daniel Scott! Have it on, guys! Let's do the argument! Go for it. :) Modernism was a provocation, a challenge, a kind of radicalism. It makes us ask: 1. What is beauty? 2. Can something so consciously MADE, so utterly CONSTRUCTED, be beautiful? (a new kind of beautiful?) 3. Can language that is designed to be beautiful in its loftiness and/or its ability to describe the natural/actual world be said legitimately to be *not* beautiful (that's what Williams would say)? Now we're at the nub of the issue..... --Al