Meaning: This quote by American poet Howard Nemerov reflects on the nature of poetic revolutions and the subsequent perception of their innovations. Nemerov suggests that the poetic revolution associated with poets such as T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, while significant in its time, may eventually be perceived as trivial or indistinguishable from mere technical tricks. This quote prompts a consideration of the enduring impact of poetic revolutions and the evolution of poetic techniques over time.

The reference to a "revolution in poetry" associated with Eliot and Pound likely alludes to the modernist movement in poetry that emerged in the early 20th century. T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound were key figures in this movement, which sought to break away from traditional forms and themes in poetry. They experimented with new poetic techniques, such as fragmentation, allusion, and free verse, and embraced themes of disillusionment, alienation, and the fragmented nature of modern life. Their works, including Eliot's "The Waste Land" and Pound's "The Cantos," challenged conventional notions of poetry and exerted a profound influence on subsequent generations of poets.

Nemerov's contemplation of the fate of poetic revolutions raises thought-provoking questions about the nature of innovation in poetry and its reception over time. The notion that innovations may eventually appear trivial or be perceived as technical tricks speaks to the evolving nature of artistic movements and the changing perspectives of audiences and critics. It also underscores the complex relationship between innovation and tradition in the realm of poetry.

One interpretation of Nemerov's statement is that the initial shock and impact of revolutionary poetic movements may diminish as their techniques become assimilated into the broader poetic landscape. What was once groundbreaking and revolutionary may, with the passage of time, lose its aura of radicalism and come to be regarded as simply another set of poetic tools or techniques. This phenomenon is not unique to poetry but is a recurring pattern in the evolution of art and literature. Innovations that initially provoke controversy and excitement can, over time, become normalized and integrated into the mainstream, leading to a reevaluation of their original significance.

Moreover, Nemerov's observation invites consideration of the cyclical nature of artistic movements and the ebb and flow of critical acclaim. What is hailed as revolutionary in one era may be reevaluated and even dismissed in another, only to potentially experience a resurgence of appreciation in subsequent periods. This cyclical pattern underscores the complexity of evaluating artistic innovation and the ways in which the passage of time can alter perceptions of creative work.

In conclusion, Howard Nemerov's contemplation of the revolution in poetry associated with Eliot and Pound offers a thought-provoking exploration of the nature of artistic innovation and its reception over time. The quote prompts reflection on the enduring impact of poetic revolutions, the assimilation of innovative techniques into the mainstream, and the cyclical nature of artistic movements. Nemerov's insights encourage a nuanced understanding of the evolution of poetry and the complex interplay between innovation, tradition, and the changing perspectives of audiences and critics.