Many beginners think it is okay to write in an old style because it seems more “poetic.” This is an important issue, so I thought it deserved a thorough answer. There are also short answers that are equally compelling, at the end of this long answer.

            Start with the idea that the most beautiful form serves a purpose (i.e. form follows function), and suppose that one of the primary goals of art is to show the truth, then the best form is that which serves that purpose best, that which shows the truth the best.

            If you believe that aesthetics is, as its etymology suggests, about the sensuous apprehension of the divine, the true, or the beautiful, then sensory information (imagery) is crucial for the aesthetic experience. No image, no truth.

            Further, if you believe that intuition is an important part of grasping the truth in art, i.e. intuition as the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning, then your most natural voice is crucial. Why?

            The original meaning of “intuition” was the immediate knowledge of the divine, e.g. seeing God or angels. This means being one with the knowledge of the divine im-mediately, i.e. without mediation. There is nothing between you and the divine. “Im-mediate” understanding, then, is all about the naked self in its spontaneous form. You don’t have time to get dressed up in old-fashioned formal meters, rhythms, costumes, symbols, etc. The “prettiness” of an old style actually obscures the experience of the truth. You don’t have time to worry about self-consciously styling your self. When confronted with the divine, you just are what you are in your totality (good, bad, ugly, wise, beautiful, stupid etc.)

            But why, then, could poets like Shakespeare communicate such rich human truths in such strict forms like blank verse? They lived and worked in a living art form, theater. They were trained in meter and verse forms, which shaped songs and hymns also. So their speech was much closer to poetry than ours is. Importantly, Shakespeare did not sound antiquated when he was writing. In fact, he was extraordinarily daring and brought more words into literature, from the gutter to the most sublime regions, than any other writer since.

            So if you want to present a truly universal experience of the truth, the most believable style is the most natural style. It is the voice of your natural (or even primal) self, the self that is underneath your socially form-fitting self, the self that makes itself up everyday. Your original self, the person that perhaps only your best friend or friends know or ever glimpse, that is where your true voice comes from. Even if you are more interested in beauty than truth, the most powerful style is still a style that seems more natural rather than affected.

Possible Objections:

(i) But what if your true, natural voice is generic, unoriginal or loaded with cliches?

            Actually, this is true of everyone—to some degree. But the fact is that whether you like it or not, every individual is also unique and “original” to some degree. The real question is whether or not you are willing to reveal that uniqueness, whatever it is. No one can make you leap down (or up) to your true knowledge of the world and to speak from there. This is a test of character, ultimately. In fact, the most important factor in the success or failure of poets and writers is how motivated they are—how badly they want to do it, and how badly they want to be original or great.

            Note that one aspect of originality is “technical” in nature in that everyone can learn to stop thinking in cliches. You just need to realize that cliches are pre-packaged McKnowledge, and you have to decide to push beyond them and demand a deeper form of truth, one that carries your original stamp. When you go deeper than the cliches, you transform the way you perceive reality because you are throwing away old glasses and getting a “prescription” that lets you see clearly again.

(ii) But what if your true view of the world is undesirable, immoral, or even shameful?

            This is far more common than most people want to admit. Witness the popularity of guilty pleasures like war-mongering, hate-inciting talk radio. On the other hand, since many people share a common sense understanding of many of the flaws and failings of society and humanity in general, these themes are intrinsically interesting. Flawed heroes are more intriguing than perfect ones. Flawed poets and writers are more intriguing than more “perfectly balanced” ones. Witness the popularity of Anne Sexton, Sylvia Plath, John Berryman, et alia. It comes down to this—are you willing to say what you really believe?

(iii) But what if your true self has the vision, the “original” voice, and the will, but no patience or skill for making imagery and metaphor etc...

            This happens, and sometimes it is very successful—some poets develop their voice with so much depth that they seem to need little or no imagery, in the strict sense. The auditory power of poetry can make up for much that be missing elsewhere. There’s nothing wrong with that.

            It is worth pointing out, however, that most poets with the vision and voice gravitate toward imagery not because it is “poetic” but simply because people think in images before they think in words. Dreams, for example, can convey complex emotions and thoughts using exclusively visual phenomena. Or think of the image-making industries that support all presidents and all pop superstars. Images as a language unto themselves are more powerful (and perhaps even more “poetic”) than words alone. Witness the silent films of Charlie Chaplin.

(iv) But what if you don’t know anything, or you don’t know anything worth passing on?

            Every person knows something unique, even if it is just some knowledge about one’s own consciousness. Admittedly, much of the struggle of writing well is discovering what is inside your true self and finding value in that knowledge.

            It is also important to mention that what you “know” may be invented in the writing process itself. That is, when you are writing, you can actually learn things about your own consciousness and the way you deal with reality. In fact, if you write regularly and with sincere passion or intention, it is inevitable that your writing will transform your consciousness and your reality just the way that the serious study of music or any other art will.

Short answers to why it is wrong to write in an antiquated style.

(i) It makes you look like an amateur or a beginner, and no respectable literary journal will publish your work.

(ii) An old style calls attention to itself and obscures what you are really trying to say, so even a really good idea will not get the attention it deserves.

(iii) Even though antiquated styles may sound like great literature of the past, those past writers were writing in their contemporary idioms. They were speaking to their own generations in ways that were fresh and innovative. Literary history is all about innovation, renewal, change, and exploration. So imitating their diction etc. is imitating only a surface instead of what had real value.