As a general cultural critic, I have been exposed to many elements of culture. Some parts I could have done
without, and others have delighted me. Having sensitivity to the written word, one of those delights has been in
studying poetry in all of its forms. Some of those forms have not excited me, especially those of more modern
derivation. Everything started going downhill with the French vers libre movement of a couple of centuries ago.
Still poetry, especially formal poetry, was fascinating enough for me to take an interest.
After making a study of many forms of poetry, I have come to one conclusion. The reason that the Anglo-Saxon
peoples, the English and Americans, have been the supreme world powers for several centuries was that while other
cultures, such as the French, the Celts, and the Arabs were putting all of their energy into developing highly
complex poetic forms, the Anglo-Saxons were reserving most of their ingenuity for prosperity and conquest. While
there are a few poetic forms attributable to the Anglo-Saxons, the English, or Americans, they do not have the
complexity and nuance found in other countries' prosodies.
Now, I know that a lack of complexity and nuance has also been noted in good old American style political
discussion. To an American, it doesn't matter if the other fellow calls one an S.O.B or makes a statement from
which one may infer that he suspects one's mother had canine proclivities. It works out the same, and the fellow
is going to receive a whooping, a whomping, and a cowboy boot stomping. Real Americans don't worry about nuance
too much; we're too busy making the world safe for outsourcing of services.
Now, those with a more nuanced view of life might ask questions. Are the complex verse forms the cause of the
other culture's more nuanced approach? Or is it one effect of a more complex mind and outlook that notes and
enjoys the nuances and subtleties of complexity?
Frankly, I don't care. Either way, they were so busy being complex that they got nothing of importance done.
What real use is a compound acrostic? Is there a real reason to have different forms of poetry called the canso
and the canzo and call a section of a poem a canto? In the time it takes to write a sestina the Germans made it
from the border to Paris in World War II. The Germans, stay-at-home cousins of the Anglo-Saxons, are also not
known for their complex poetic forms. Does it matter the cause as long as the effects are clustered?
So, I'm not sure what good recognizing this association does for anyone unless it is found to be predictive.
For instance, is there a progress toward complexity? Will we know that America is doomed when we find that our
poetry becomes more complex? Did the Dutch start having more complex poetic forms before they lost their
preeminence in the world of trade? Probably not. More likely it is a cultural thing extending back thousands of
years. The Germanic tribes kept poetry simple. The Latins and the Celts were always more complex. It's the true
reason that Rome fell to the Goths. The Celtic bards were even more full of complexity and nuance than the Romans,
which is why the Romans managed to defeat them. They were so full of complexity that they thought rubbing blue
pigment on your naked body prepared you to fight. Come to think of it, the French aren't much better at preparing
to fight. (Fight? The French? Did I say that?)
Anyway, we might use it to determine the winner of future wars. Instead of actually going through the fighting,
we'll just examine the cultural and poetic histories of the people involved. This might even work with aliens
from space. "Surrender now, Bogar of Ashteron, your poetry is far too complex for you to win against us! Your
defeat is inevitable." Call it the theory of manifest poetic destiny.
F. B. Knight is Curmudgeon-in-Residence at the Attila the Hun School of Management. He can be reached for questions
at
fbk@attilathehunschool.net.
