Modernism and the Problem of Applying the Term “Modern” to Sonnets (Ghazals)

Today's poetry has undergone extensive changes due to the huge transformations of the last three decades. Even though the sonnet has found its own way through changing its nature and has, hence, been able to experience new worlds to the extent that the contemporary sonnet shines brilliantly as the most prominent form of poetry, Nima's goal was to break away from the prosody systems and change the linguistic and contextual identity of the poem. Indeed, the contemporary ghazal has only been successful in applying some of Nima's desired changes, such as breaking the narrative (lack of linear and narrative structure of the ghazal). Using a descriptive-analytical method based on interdisciplinary library studies of literature and philosophy, authors of this article have reached the conclusion that attributes like having contemporary poetic concerns, using a simple and intimate language, benefitting from vast vocabulary and introducing familiar elements are not enough to call ghazal “modern”. In other words, traditional poetry forms are not suitable for modern poetry because they are limited, predictable and universal. On the contrary, modern poetry is unlimited, unpredictable and subjective. So, a ghazal can be said to be modern (modern) if it completely loses interest in the past. A sonnet which is even remotely connected to the past and simultaneously introduces modernistic concerns, should not be considered as a modern sonnet; it should, rather, be discussed as innovative.