Are changes really necessary?

As the conventional wisdom goes: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

But the modernist and the Oulipo are anything but conventional; they defy the traditional style. The modernist focuses on the changes in semantics and the Oulipo on formalism. But are such changes really necessary?

Williams argues that as times changes, so do people’s ideas and perceptions. The associations that the people make from the olden times become anachronistic and those associations are unreal and inapplicable to people in different age-- Sounds perfectly rational to me.

As for the Oulipo, Lionnais questions tradition of repeating the same forms: “Must one adhere to the old tricks of the trade and obstinately refuse to imagine new possibilities? The partisans of the status quo don’t hesitate to answer in the affirmative” (Lipo: First Manifesto). The restrictions are no longer useful, hence, should not be placed. Formalism gives rise to meaning, and if it’s there for the sake of being there—well, it’s unnecessary. Again, perfectly rational.

So why are works from such school of thoughts so difficult to comprehend? We’ve been ingrained with the ideas of the traditionalists. We need those high sounding interpretation and those easier meters like the iambic pentameter. In that sense, the old associations and the old forms are NOT anachronistic, we’ve been learning them! Newness is destroying our ability to think! It is ironic how the modern poems are suppose adapt to the modern thinking, but when we think of poetry, we still refer back to Dickinson, Shakespeare, or even as far back as Homer.

So why change? It does break away from clichés and repetition of the old stuff. It does give depths to poetry when there’s actually meaning in form and in associations. But at what cost?

Times are indeed changing, but it is more than just the evolution of poetry. The common stigma of modern poetry is poor and poets are not honored as greatly as Shakespeare. To the untrained ears, modern poetry is pretty much blabbering nonsense. The moderns delve into meaning differently from the traditional—and not many people are actually trained to undertake such an escapade.

However, it isn’t necessary that traditional poetry would fare any better. As times change, going to a theater to watch a play no longer is the supreme form of entertainment—entertainment is now wide and diverse. Poetry takes a back seat to what science can do—to create computers and televisions and others. Perhaps traditional poetry would catch less attention, but at least they would be spared of the ridicule from uninformed individuals.

So is it all necessary? It is ironic that Williams notes the exclusiveness of writers when they don’t follow conventional methods, yet the moderns exclude the readers from “difficult” reading material. The newness filters out those with passion for poetry and those don’t. Perhaps it is better this way.