000			03134cam a22003613u 4500
001			76401
003			UtSlPG
005			20260610134752.0
006			m
007			cr n
008			260607r20251927utu|||||o|||||||||||||| d
010			_a28014310
040			_aUtSlPG
041		7	_aen _2iso639-1
050		4	_aPN
100	1		_aRiding, Laura, _d1901-1991
245	1	2	_aA survey of modernist poetry
264		1	_aSalt Lake City, UT : _bProject Gutenberg, _c2025
300			_a1 online resource : _bmultiple file formats
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
500			_aRelease date is 2025-06-27
508			_aHannah Wilson, Laura Natal and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
520			_a"A survey of modernist poetry" by Laura Riding and Robert Graves is a work of literary criticism written in the early 20th century. It explores why modernist poems look and read the way they do, how they challenge the “plain reader,” and what new techniques—of form, diction, punctuation, and layout—aim to achieve. The authors argue that experiment serves clarity of experience, not obscurity for its own sake, and that readers must meet the poems with more active, precise attention. The opening of the book sets up the debate between modernist innovation and the plain reader’s expectations, using E. E. Cummings as a test case. It closely reads his short “Sunset” piece to show how spacing, sound-patterns, and omission create a concentrated experience, then reconstructs a conventional version to prove how banality and cliché return when the innovations are removed. From there it weighs French Symbolist influences (Mallarmé, Rimbaud, Valéry), Japanese suggestiveness, and the problem of form versus subject-matter, arguing for organic design over fixed molds; it illustrates flexible structure with Hart Crane and biblical parallelism, and contrasts Eliot’s The Waste Land, whose transitions bind a unified whole, with Tennyson’s In Memoriam, whose uniform stanza masks digression. A chapter on punctuation shows how Cummings’ typography encodes meaning and guards against misreading, then compares that editorial vulnerability to Shakespeare’s Sonnet 129, demonstrating how modernized punctuation and spelling can flatten Shakespeare’s dense, interwoven sense. Finally, the start of the next chapter frames modernism’s “unpopularity,” and analyzes another Cummings piece (a jolting train scene) to show how unorthodox layout precisely transmits movement and perception. (This is an automatically generated summary.)
534			_pOriginally published: _cLondon: William Heinemann Ltd., 1927
653			_aModernism (Literature)
653			_aPoetry, Modern -- 20th century -- History and criticism
653			_aFree verse
700	1		_aGraves, Robert, _d1895-1985
856	4		_uhttps://archive.org/details/surveyofmodernis0000ridi
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76401
999			_c117126 _d117126