| Author | Message | ||
| LJ Cohen
Moderator Username: ljc Post Number: 5098 Registered: 07-2002 |
The discussion in M's sonnet thread got me thinking about form and (or versus) free verse. I'm primarily a free-verse kind of gal (not a big one for rules or restrictions!), but I do return now and again to very restrictive forms, like the sonnet or the sestina. I find the discipline of cleaving to a strict form really enhances my free verse writing. What are your opinions on form and free verse? ljc Once in a Blue Muse Blog | ||
| ~M~
Board Administrator Username: mjm Post Number: 7926 Registered: 11-1998 |
Interesting topic, Lisa. steve and I have been debating it at length due to this class we are both taking. Here are my thoughts. I believe that most of the traditional forms (sonnets, sestinas, villanelles, et. al.) were developed at a time in man's evolutionary history when there wasn't much in the form of entertainment (no TV's, no radios, no computers, etc.). After working a hard day in the fields, there wasn't much to keep one occupied in an enjoyable way. And so people started playing with language. In other words, I fancy them saying to themselves, "Wouldn't it be challenging to write something that must adhere to specific rules while still saying what you want it to say?" Not to trivialize things, but they created "games" of a sort. And so they challenged and entertained themselves with this. Form isn't really something superior -- it evolves quite naturally since we all speak and think in some kind of metered way, whether we realize it or not. Even children love the cadence of rhymes and repetition, hence, all those nursery rhymes. We respond to this because it is a part of our genetic code. But I think to raise traditional form to some sort of religion is going too far. And I don't believe you should use form willy-nilly. I think the form should enhance, underlie, or support the content in some way. One of steve's recent works comes to mind as a great example. It's titled Lullaby and it's a pantoum. In this case, the form of the poem with its meter and its rhyming and its repetitive lines enhances the content of the piece. Lullabies are, after all, musical compositions. So, too, is his pantoum that speaks to the lullaby itself, that mimics its cadence. It was a great choice to marry form to content. When this topic arises, I'm always reminded of a movie I saw once about psychiatry. It's entitled, "Lovesick" and stars Dudley Moore. Dr. Freud appears in it and at the very end he says something like (I have to paraphrase since I don't remember the exact quote): "I considered analysis an interesting experiment. I never intended for it to become an industry." I think the same applies to poetic forms. Interesting experiments that sometimes have delightful outcomes, but that doesn't make them superior. We all write in some kind of form, even if we are blind to it. Even free verse has a structure if the poet is skilled enough. Playing with old forms teaches us much about the way that language can be manipulated. But just as it would be anachronistic to drive around in a horse and buggy in this age of the automobile, I feel that forcing oneself to write in form just because some experts classify it as intellectual and, therefore, worthy of exultation is taking it too far. Form worked in its time period because it mimicked the way that people spoke then. I think as writers we have an obligation to speak to our own ages as well as to revere the past. Writing like Shakespeare is a worthy pursuit, but I hardly think it will play well with the common man in 2006. Poetry is considered by many as too dry and too dull and too vaulted. Ordinary people don't want to read it because it's outside their sphere of experience. Free verse sort of puts it back in the hands of the average person. That's why I support free verse. However, that's just this age, this time period. Perhaps in the future, we will be taken back to form and taken forward at the same time to forms of a different sort. Who knows how language will evolve. I say experiment with everything. But don't laud form as some sort of "talk of the angels." It's just form and if you can't justify using a particular form to match your content like steve did, then abandon it. The best part of language is our ability to play with it in any way we wish. We shouldn't be hamstrung by our own beautiful words. Of course, these are only my opinions. I could be wrong.  Love, M | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Valued Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 284 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hi LJC, While some of the forms M mentions were not around at the dawn of recorded history, poetry itself was, and poetry pre-dates recorded history. Actually, ancient extant writings show that verse was the means of recording history before we had more reliable ways of doing so. Stories were passed on by way of the oral tradition, and the stories were remembered by making them musical. They were given metrics and rhyme for very practical reasons, not merely as a means of playing with the language. The reality of metrics is that they are a part of every poem, even those classed as free verse. The meter may be irregular, but it's there, and the great poet is always aware of it. Rhyme, alliteration, and other tropes are still in use with free verse as well... no longer restricted to capping a line, a rhyme may now be a slant rhyme or a near rhyme, and it may appear anywhere within a line rather than only at the line's end. Free verse will, and already is, giving birth to new forms. Free verse is not so much a form itself as a license to ignore or manipulate prior forms at will. With this freedom, the poet crafts new forms. From chaos springs order. The only way you can take away music is to take away sound... and the only way to take away poetry is to take away words. As long as there are words, there is a sort of order imposed by the poet... or perhaps an order that imposes itself in the poet's arrangements of thought through language. There is no reason not to support poetry in all its forms. As with any art, one might well have a favorite form and not forsake all the others. A Pointillist is an Impressionist, n'est ce pas? Yet the Pointillist may have more in common with the Surrealist than with most Impressionists, depending on the painter. The point is that poetry, whether it's so-called "formal" verse, contemporary free verse, or anything else from slam poetry to rap, is bound by order and metrics. We are giving language form, we are shaping words. We are not necessarily bound to tradition... but binding is our nature. "I had a lover's quarrel with the world." ~Robert Frost | ||
| penny august
Valued Member Username: funnyoldlady Post Number: 264 Registered: 06-2006 |
Being new to poetry, I find that having a restrictive form with rules is much easier for me, somehow, than having to find some kind of "form" that makes "ordinary" writing become poetry. So I guess that's my question - what, exactly, (if there is an exactly) is the difference between prose and free verse "poetry"? Jeffrey, you say that poetry is bound by form and metrics. Do you mean that that's inherent in all writing, or in "good" poetry? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but the only thing I ever claim for certain is my ignorance, and I'd really like to learn. Let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. - Mark Twain. | ||
| LJ Cohen
Moderator Username: ljc Post Number: 5104 Registered: 07-2002 |
M--I love what you said here: "We shouldn't be hamstrung by our own beautiful words." Exactly. One of the things I have learned here is when the form begins to dictate the content and begins to weaken the content, then adhering to the form does not do justice to the poem. Jeffrey--I like this in your thoughtful response: "We are giving language form, we are shaping words." yes--when we manipulate language into poetic structure, there is form whether it is a recognized form or not. Penny--you ask a very good question. These discussions, archived on the Naturopathy/library forum touches a little on the differences between poetry and prose: http://www.wildpoetryforum.com/discus/messages/33334/37704.html?1146070386 http://www.wildpoetryforum.com/discus/messages/33334/32974.html?1126185942 Wonderful, thoughtful responses! Thank you! ljc Once in a Blue Muse Blog | ||
| Robby Desmond
New member Username: angwe Post Number: 14 Registered: 07-2006 |
Speaking from my own experience, my poetry was sporadic and hard to produce until I took three or four poetry appreciation classes at college all in a row. Being asked to read and understand and appreciate the variety of styles, and also being asked to imitate by some of my profs, allowed me to increase the range of tools I had at hand for poetic expression. One thing that Katya (who has been trained as a poet from a young age) says about form/free verse is also something that our primarily prose-writing friend said about story writing rules. "You have to know what the rules are before you can creatively break them." (He was making reference to how useful The Marshall Plan was as a story/novel-writing aid. He felt if you followed it to the letter, you wouldn't get a very good story, but you needed to know it to be able to tell exactly where and why you were breaking the rules.) I think poetry in all forms - even the free-verse form - can be exceptionally good, but I think you need to know what you're getting into. C-YA : cyberpunk acronym for "Cover Your A--", a traditional sign-off/good-bye. | ||
| Fred Longworth
Valued Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 107 Registered: 05-2006 |
I've always been suspicious of the adage that you have to know the rules before you can break them. According to Al Qaeda, we Satanists here in America are forever breaking their rules, yet most of us know little about what those rules are. * * * * * In the context of poetry, the adage implies that if one "follows the rules" one writes in form (rhyme, meter, line repetition.) I am more of the opinion that there are different schools or genres, each with its own habits and criteria (for success or failure), terms and conditions -- and all of these are gathered together under the umbrella term: poetry. Language poetry, page poetry, lyric poetry, ekphrastic poetry, performance and slam poetry, narrative poetry, list poetry, poetry in translation, doggerel, catterel, scatterel . . . * * * * * But this I know for certain: We are all little organic bags of habits, repeating patterns that go on and on like echoes in a tunnel. As such, we can easily become endless imitators of ourselves -- and in so doing, thwart our growth and development as artists. Thus, a plain, simple dictum: challenge yourself (or allow yourself to be challenged) in ways that stretch or redefine your boundaries. If attention to form does that, then go for it. For myself, over the last couple of years Dobyns' book Best Words, Best Order has been a fabulous source of out-of-the-box ideas. But, bringing this back home, I know that in my month-and-a-half here at WPF I've written some of the better poetry I've penned in the last several years. This is largely because of the weekly challenges, and their requirement that I step outside my regular writing patterns. Fred (Message edited by sandiegopoet on July 16, 2006) | ||
| Robby Desmond
New member Username: angwe Post Number: 15 Registered: 07-2006 |
Don't you find that sometimes by imitating or attempting to repeat yourself that you "accidentally" come up with something new and different? Not saying that the same stuff over and over is really great, but I'm trying to see something like Borges does in "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" C-YA : cyberpunk acronym for "Cover Your A--", a traditional sign-off/good-bye. | ||
| Karen L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1219 Registered: 08-2004 |
Personally, a poem tends to make itself. If what develops can be hammered to a form then do it-- otherwise a poem falls freely. I can start out to write a form and end up with something else-- as M knows from her challenges. LOL I just let it happen. I think the breaking the rules thing is a clever fact-- One must know the rules to break them, otherwise they are just screwing up. fun discussion. (yawn)*lol (((smile))) Karen | ||
| penny august
Valued Member Username: funnyoldlady Post Number: 265 Registered: 06-2006 |
soo..then who is allowed to "break the rules" - must one first be able to paint like Wyeth in order to then be allowed to be a Miro or Chagall or Picasso?? Who determines this? Is it best, as Robby says, to learn the rules before you break them, or is it better to never have known them so that you are free to create your own style without inhibition? Or should I just wear my pink panty hat? (smiles) LJ - thanks for the links - I have printed them out to study, along with Dales excellent poem re faith. Some good helpful comments there, especially about line breaks and Billy Collins Turning Ten example. Don't know that i'll ever "get it" (sigh). (-:= Let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. - Mark Twain. | ||
| Karen L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1220 Registered: 08-2004 |
well there ya go Penny-- wearing a pink panty hat at an all purple party! jeesh! we just can't take you anywhere. (((smile))) Karen | ||
| penny august
Valued Member Username: funnyoldlady Post Number: 266 Registered: 06-2006 |
OMG - maybe one with purple polka-dots? maybe i should just sneak out the side door quietly... (-:= Let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. - Mark Twain. | ||
| Emusing
Moderator Username: emusing Post Number: 3719 Registered: 08-2003 |
A form is a tool. If we only know straw and mud we will build fine houses of straw and mud. As a poet we are architects of the word. We can build sky scrapers, bungalows, and three story condos. It’s up to us. Many artists (though certainly not all) study their craft and then move on to break boundaries. Picasso understood figurative painting before he ever ventured into abstraction. In music, it is the same. There are many examples. Of course if you want to write a great blues tune and that’s the style you want to write in you will write fantastic three chord tunes. I love blues and some of the guys that have been at it their whole lives are masters of the form. Do you need to know forms to write great poetry? I don’t think so. Will you write better poetry if you know and practice forms. I believe it expands your native potential. That is my opinion only. Take any poet including any of our great contemporary poets and you will find that most of them have studied form at one point or another. Robert Bly masters the ghazal, Poet Laureate and Pulitzer prize winner Rita Dove writes a series of sonnets based on Rainer Marie Rilke’s Sonnets to Orpheus. Billy Collin’s famous “Sonnet.” There are many examples. This is not about being slave to a form. This is about learning to paint with unlimited colors. In any form, the technique should not jump and say “I’m a sonnet! I’m a rhymed couplet! The technique should be so subtle that it enhances the poem, like a great spice that you may not even be able to identify. The more you know form, the more you can appreciate technique but you certainly do not need to know form to appreciate a great work. As a writer, I feel hindered by a lack of knowledge. I personally intend on learning and appreciating the use of form to enhance my own work. As a moderator, I feel handicapped. Poets write in all styles. How can I help someone fix the gears on their bicycle if I only know how to patch tires? In the world of revision the knowledge of form can help suggest how a poem could take shape. It’s like being able to see with a great telescope the breadth of a poem’s potential. When I took drawing classes sometime back, one of the first techniques learnt was working from large to small. When the student completed his initial drawing, the instructor would ask, “What is the largest aspect of this drawing that can be corrected.? Maybe it was the overall shape of the subject that was imbalanced. We would continue working from large to small until finally the minor details were perfected. Again, knowing forms can help you “see” the points for correction. Rhythm is an essential part of form (whether in free verse or metrical verse). If you know how to play 5 different types of percussion instruments—your music piece may be a bit more interesting then the guy who beats on a dirty diaper pail (just kidding—reminded me of my ex-boyfriend so I had to through that in). Anyway, you get the idea.  This has been (and will continue to be) a fascinating subject. Let me just end my post with this. Whether one learn forms or not, we are at a distinct disadvantage if we do not read read read the poetry of others in all styles and forms. One cannot live in an esoteric ivory tower and expect to be in touch with the pulse of today’s writing. Knowledge is power! LOL E | ||
| LJ Cohen
Moderator Username: ljc Post Number: 5107 Registered: 07-2002 |
I just love how eloquent you all are! My ulterior motive is to periodically pose these sorts of questions so we can keep our thoughts as part of Wild's archives. Keep the discussion going! Best, ljc Once in a Blue Muse Blog | ||
| Karen L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1221 Registered: 08-2004 |
Well said, E! It is fun to enjoy a poem and then discover its form. Like, "Wow! You know what that is?" You're also able to understand certain elements to ALL form of poetry by knowing all, or even some, of the aspects and paths a poem can take. I've reread several poems over the years and find often a new insight is found just from the practice of studying poetry. Appreciation comes first, then discovery. What a great and somewhat rare hobby we share. It's cool to be in on some of the "secrets" a poem holds. (((smile))) Karen | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Valued Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 285 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hi Penny, You ask: "Jeffrey, you say that poetry is bound by form and metrics. Do you mean that that's inherent in all writing, or in "good" poetry?" An interesting question, and one that I'll make an attempt to field. It has been said that all good prose is poetry... now while that seems contradictory at first, the idea is to think about where one draws the line. It's a line that's ever more blurry in recent years with free verse and prose poetry gaining in popularity. But let's not dwell on lofty ideals of poetry as art. With a loose definition, a blacksmith or a painter is producing poetry. And if you tighten the definition just enough to exclude all but language, every good novel is poetry. So we're not doing that. We're looking at form, and we're trying to draw a line between poetry and prose. Fair enough. This is where metrics come into play, as do poetic tropes. Metrics are inherent in all poetry, yes, I am certainly saying that. Sometime the meter is irregular, but it's still there, and it's still important. Some poets may pay attention to it only at an unconscious level... they just know they like the way their work sounds. For others, it's a very careful crafting, even in free verse. But no matter how it comes about, it's there. You cannot write poetry without it. You can refuse to pay attention to it and produce some rather dissonant pieces, but it will still be there. Of all the poetic tropes, or devices, perhaps the most important is metaphor. Percy Bysshe Shelley and Robert Frost would agree. Shelley said there was no poetry without metaphor, and Frost said the most important element of a poem was synecdoche, which is a special sort of metaphor (as in using "the crown" to stand in for a monarchy... a part represents a whole.) Sometimes metaphors are not immediately apparent... maybe the subject of the poem is meant to seen as a metaphorical "everyman", for instance... standing in for the reader of the poem. You are not going to find these poetic elements in a news article (generally), which is as good an example as any of "pure prose". Art is stripped from the news article. The words are meant only to communicate in a straightforward, no-nonsense way. There are no double entendres, no metaphors, no meter beyond the unavoidable in the reproduction of language meant to mimic speech, were speech devoid of much of the flavor that makes it interesting. The news article covers the who, what, when, and where as quickly and succinctly as possible. About the only place poetry creeps in from time to time are in the eye-grabbing headlines ("Pink Peanut Takes First Place at Preakness!") and perhaps in a colorful editorial. So how do we know when a free verse poem or a prose poem is actually poetry? Some of the answer lies in the appeal. Is a picture of an old oak painted in your mind, or does the writer hand you a textbook on botany? Are there unanswered questions that leave you wondering, or do the words hide nothing? Is there alliteration, assonance, rhyme, or simile? Or does the work do no more than narrate in a straightforward style? These questions won't always separate poetry from prose in the tough cases, but they should give you a place to start asking questions of your own as you meander from one form to the next. I should give you the definitions out of the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, but it's just too hot for me to get up and get it right now. ;) I realize looking back over this that I've assumed form as an element without addressing it. It's sort of like talking about water without talking about the glass it's in. Where words are water, the language is a great lake. Poetry is more than just words, of course. The words are poured into a container... the form of the poem. Maybe a sonnet is a very regular form. It's wine goblet with very symmetrical curves. But a free verse poem still has to have a glass to keep it from being indistinguishable from the lake. Maybe it's in a strange, hand-blown glass with twists and curves and no convenient place to drink from... but it's still in a glass. To extend the analogy to prose, prose isn't in glasses. It's in aquarium tanks. The language is given form, it's ordered, it holds together in such a way that it's easy to see the contents, relatively free of distortion. Just look at all them there goldfish. ;) Alright, my anaolgy is going to escape me eventually... it's made of glass, after all. So I hope that at least gives the vaguest impression of my thoughts on the matter. I hope something I've said was of use, or at least interesting enough to hold your attention! ~Jeff (Message edited by Runatyr on July 16, 2006) "I had a lover's quarrel with the world." ~Robert Frost | ||
| Ava South
Intermediate Member Username: avasouth Post Number: 325 Registered: 05-2006 |
I am going to jump right in here even if the angels are telling me that I am way out of my league. My mouth will get me into trouble as usual. I wrote poetry from a very early age, as so many kids do. Whatever was going on in my life was scribbled in notebooks and yellow legal pads. At that time, I thought a poem had to rhyme, so I rhymed about my friends, whatever was going on in my head, and of course the opposite sex when I was a teen. I never studied form or took any college courses. As a parent, my children and husband became my subjects. I was a nurse and wrote about illness and my patients. Only when I found places like WP, with all of you learned and funny people did I hear about cinquians, villanelles, etc. And I love playing with them, but still I have to write from my heart and head. I am probably not a poet at all. But that won't keep me from writing. It's something I have to do. Ava | ||
| Karen L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1223 Registered: 08-2004 |
Ava, love, sit down, I have something to tell you. You are a poet, dear, you were born that way. There are no cures, and dammit, there are no operations. There isn't even a group of scientists researching pigs and mouses for the cause. Is it nature, or is it nurture? The world may never know. But listen, you can rest assured that it takes three licks to get to the tootsie roll middle. (((smile))) Karen | ||
| penny august
Valued Member Username: funnyoldlady Post Number: 268 Registered: 06-2006 |
E and Jeffrey - Wow! Is this ever a great place to ask a question, or what?? Hold my interest? I'm dancing with delight (and that says a lot in this heat!). Those are the most comprehensive answers I could ever have hoped for, and which are now printed and filed on top of my reference folder until they are totally committed to memory (in my case, that may be years). Thank you both so very much - your answers really have helped to clarify the difference for me, so that I think I now understand intellectually, that is, some of the characteristics of poem vs. prose. The difficult part, of course, is to be able to implement this knowledge into something decent. That's where that poetapult would come in quite handy. Again, thanks for all the input and thanks, Lisa, for opening this discussion. It sure has been helpful for me. (-:= Let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. - Mark Twain. | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Valued Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 289 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hi Ava, While I am responding a great deal to this topic, it's only because it's of infinite interest to me, not because I am declaring myself a resident expert. ;) "I have to write from my heart and head." If you're doing that, you're covering plenty of ground. The Romantics can be called poets who write from the heart, while the Modernists might be called poets who write from the head, just to name two of the vast schools of so-called academic poetry. You are a poet. A poet is not made of degrees. A poet is not borne of sonnets and villanelles. A poet does not spring forth as the flower of education. A poet makes the ineffable... effable. ;) Knowing how to do that doesn't require anything but eyes that see more than light reveals, focus, and a firm grasp of the language. I often refer to Walt Whitman as an example. He popularized free verse, though he certainly didn't invent it. He was not a collegiate man of letters. Sure, he was well-versed in Dante and Shakespeare and spent time as a teacher... but it was many years before current certification standards were followed and he was largely self-taught. Among his primary influences were the Bible and Italian opera... not exactly the standard for poets of his day. You may be interested to know that Whitman also spent eleven years of his life nursing the wounded of the Civil War. You write from both head and heart, and you say nothing will keep you from writing. Your subjects have often been the real world subjects you know the most about. Even without having read your work, I would guess you as a poet. But I have read your work. So I know you as one. ~Jeff (Message edited by Runatyr on July 17, 2006) "I had a lover's quarrel with the world." ~Robert Frost | ||
| penny august
Valued Member Username: funnyoldlady Post Number: 271 Registered: 06-2006 |
Ava - it's quite evident that you write from the heart, and beautifully so, in my humble opinion. You are certainly more of a poet than I, (I'm pretty much just beginning) and one that I greatly admire. College courses may familiarize one with forms and other poets, but your experiences and heartfelt poems serve to share your life and your thoughts with us as the best of 'em. Don't doubt it! Let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. - Mark Twain. | ||
| ~M~
Board Administrator Username: mjm Post Number: 7941 Registered: 11-1998 |
Dear Ava -- I'm sure you speak for many who, because they lack formal training, feel inadequate to the task of writing. As a former teacher, I know that if one student feels something, there are probably many others who have the same reservations. So, I thank you most sincerely for speaking from your heart. You can be certain that there are others out there who feel the same way you do. Speaking of speaking from hearts, Jeffrey has been most eloquent in showing that poetry involves both heart and head. Head may guide the technical aspects, but if a poem lacks heart, it's a failure. I've read many poems in my day. But in particular, I've read many poems, that while technically excellent, (everything on that side is done flawlessly down to the last stroke on every T, the dots on every i) have suffered the sin of no heart. And on the other side, I have read pieces by beginners (and even children) who wouldn't know the technical aspects if they jumped up and bit them, but still manage to stun me to the core with their message. The technical aspects are easy to learn, hon. Any good introductory poetry writing book can teach you the technical side. The heart is the hard part. It's something you sort of need to be born with and it sounds as though you were. Any child who sits around writing instead of playing with dolls or running around outside playing ball is probably a born writer. The best part about today's current poetic standards is that they are open wider than they probably have been during any period in man's history. We are free to write in traditional forms or not, adhere to standard rules or not. That gives you a very wide berth, Ava. If you learn the rules and just don't like them, there are no poetry police out there who will arrest you for writing outside conventions. *smile* Feel free to work in free verse or invent your own forms. It's a good time in history to be a writer since the roads lack restrictions! Relax, Ava. There are many out there who choose their own path. I think the more important question is whether what we write is something anyone else needs to hear. If you've got a great message, the container you put it in matters little. Love, M | ||
| Ava South
Intermediate Member Username: avasouth Post Number: 327 Registered: 05-2006 |
Thanks all, for the encouraging words. I do write a lot that never hits the airwaves. Mostly it's a sort of therapy thing for me. And while I do appreciate it when others like my stuff, it's not the most important thing for me. I will admit, it would be nice to make a living at this, but I don't see that happening. ~smile~ Ava | ||
| Emusing
Moderator Username: emusing Post Number: 3740 Registered: 08-2003 |
Ava and Penny, I agree wholeheartedly with M, from the heart is what makes a poem tick. In any art expression is more important then technique. I didn't begin writing poetry because I thought I would become the next Poet Laureate. I was moved by reading the poetry of others and wondered if I could do the same. I've since discovered the more I write and read, the more I want to know--the craving never stops! This discussion overlaps another previous discussion we've had on Wild Why Do You Write? Some people write for their own personal pleasure and others because being published is a lifelong desire. All reasons are valid in my book. p.s. Karen doll thanks for your nice acknowledgement.  E | ||
| penny august
Valued Member Username: funnyoldlady Post Number: 278 Registered: 06-2006 |
E - thank you! I totally agree that what makes any art form great (for me, anyway) is when it makes me feel or think. For that to happen, the artist, I think, must have been feeling strongly when it was written/painted/played. In my own writing, I find that sometimes it's difficult for me to share those feelings for whatever reason. Sometimes I'm just too concrete, therefore not very good with metaphor, so that's something I'm trying to work on. Wild is such a wonderful, talented and generous group. I've already learned more than I ever expected, and I'm very grateful for the knowledge that has been shared. penny (-:= Let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. - Mark Twain. | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Valued Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 296 Registered: 10-2005 |
At the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse... Penny: "Is it best, as Robby says, to learn the rules before you break them, or is it better to never have known them so that you are free to create your own style without inhibition?" Fred: I've always been suspicious of the adage that you have to know the rules before you can break them. According to Al Qaeda, we Satanists here in America are forever breaking their rules, yet most of us know little about what those rules are. * * * * * In the context of poetry, the adage implies that if one "follows the rules" one writes in form (rhyme, meter, line repetition.)" There is a danger to not knowing the rules before you break them, Fred's post not withstanding. Before I delve into that, however, I had best give my reasoning for saying Fred's post is not withstanding. ;) Fred's example of Americans breaking Al-Q'aeda rules is not, in my humble opinion, particularly apt. Even if we try to equate art to Islamic fundamentalism, we are left with rather disparate subjects. Such an analogy befits a poem more than a discussion of poetics. ;) But let's give Fred's statement its due. In truth, the analogy is one comparing relationships... the relationship between Americans and the rules of a fundamentalist religion they, by and large, do not profess to believe in or wish to follow, and the relationship between the fledgling poet and the traditions of the vast and varied field she is exploring. The relationships are fundamentally (hehe) different. It's like comparing magnets repulsion to magnetic attraction and saying the same thing is happening in both cases. The artist wants to know art, is drawn like a pilgrim to the shrine of tradition, looks to see what has been laid there, then leaves an offering an offering of her own. The other part of the problem here is that Fred and I are talking about different rules. When we speak about "breaking the rules" we are not, as Fred intimates, speaking solely about breaking from form. We are speaking about every aspect of poetry as it has been passed down to us. Form, subject matter, poetic tropes, perspective, everything. The field is vast. The rules are the traditions of not only poetry, but of history, science, philosophy... civilization as viewed and expressed by the poet. Nothing less than that. Allow me the liberty of reproducing the last words of the poet T.S. Eliot's landmark essay, "Tradition and the Individual Talent"... there is much said of both how we write and why tradition is important to us as poets. T.S. Eliot: "There are many people who appreciate the expression of sincere emotion in verse, and there is a smaller number of people who can appreciate technical excellence. But very few know when there is expression of significant emotion, emotion which has its life in the poem and not in the history of the poet. The emotion of art is impersonal. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done. And he is not likely to know what is to be done unless he lives in what is not merely the present, but the present moment of the past, unless he is conscious, not of what is dead, but of what is already living." We, as poets, are building on the past. We have a responsibility to know what came before, and how we are affecting it. Google the essay if you're intrigued, it's a great read. Back to rule-breaking. We are not, when we speak of knowing the rules, speaking of blindly following them. We are speaking of an awareness of them. An awakening to and an appreciation of the many works that have preceded us. If we are "free to create our own style" without first appreciating the rules, we will run into the "danger" I mentioned at the outset of this tirade. ;) The danger, which is more certainty than risk, is that we will not create our own style at all... we will be replicating, probably poorly, what someone else has already done. We can benefit from knowing what came before so that we may learn from it and branch from it. The poet Mary Oliver has a wonderful book out called, "A Poetry Handbook" that I highly recommend. She has a few things to say on the subject as well. Mary Oliver: "You would learn very little in this world if you were not allowed to imitate. And to repeat your imitations until some solid grounding in the skill was achieved and the slight but wonderful difference - that made you you and no one else - could assert itself. Every child is encouraged to imitate. But in the world of writing it is originality that is sought out, and praised, while imitation is the sin of sins. Too bad. I think if imitation were encouraged much would be learned well that is now learned partially and haphazardly." Now I am having other poets do my speaking for me. Perhaps it is better to let them say it, for it has already been said... rather than poorly imitating it. ;) In any case, I write with an awareneness of their writing, and it informs my own. Such is the case with poetry and the informed poet. Endless degrees and monotonous book-learning are not required in order to be "informed"... awareness is all that is required. Reading the poets of the past with attention... and that can be a most pleasurable experience! Let's return to another part of Eliot's essay to see how it compares to what Oliver has said. Eliot: "...our tendency to insist, when we praise a poet, upon those aspects of his work in which he least resembles anyone else. In these aspects or parts of his work we pretend to find what is individual, what is the peculiar essence of the man. We dwell with satisfaction upon the poet's difference from his predecessors, especially his immediate predecessors; we endeavour to find something that can be isolated in order to be enjoyed. Whereas if we approach a poet without this prejudice we shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual parts of his work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously. And I do not mean the impressionable period of adolescence, but the period of full maturity." We become individuals with our own voice, our own style, not because we bound off on the road not taken, but because we have looked long into the underbrush behind us before choosing the path ahead. (Apologies to Robert Frost!) We know what paths have come before us. We may now forge our own, perhaps veering towards elements of the woods that have pleased us before, perhaps heading toward caves and brooks we've not yet seen. Do you remember discovering something as a teen and thinking you had information no one else did? I remember a forum post from such a person not too long ago (a games forum, not a poetry forum). The young man felt the need to let us all in on his big secret. We are all going to die! Feverishly, he exclaimed that we were all going about our lives without taking that important fact into consideration. At a philosophical level, perhaps he's right. But the point is that he was convinced that his epiphany was going to be a revelation for all of us. He had discovered a new way of looking at the world. Or so he thought. Of course, our mortality largely defines us and has been part and parcel of many of the greatest works of philosophy, literature, and art... not to mention a driving force in science. But this young man hadn't done much reading of that nature yet. And his statement, a poor imitation of a thousand more focused souls, suffered for it. "I had a lover's quarrel with the world." ~Robert Frost | ||
| Fred Longworth
Valued Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 113 Registered: 05-2006 |
I think, Jeffrey, that you may be confusing rules with tradition. Clearly, what is evolving -- perhaps what is most alive -- is the culture. And to be blind to the history of that culture, to the stream of energy which culminates in the NOW expression of your poem, essay or story . . . robs the writer of the lion's share of context, vitiates the entire side of a literary piece which is that piece's conversation or dialog which that which has been said before. But I was talking about rules, not tradition; and although many prefer to blur the distinction between the one and the other, I do not. I've been in the literary scene both off- and on-line for long enough to know that everywhere I look I find rigid rule-makers. "Here's how poetry should be," the pundits shout -- and denounce every literary product that does not obey their precious dictums. I myself have my own rules. A poem should -- to borrow from Dr. Johnson -- teach and entertain. But then, some poems drop hydrogen bombs in our mind -- rattle us -- and we are neither educated nor delighted, just shaken up. So . . . even MY rules are subject to challenge. * * * * * American jazz arose out of a cohort of musicians who had enormous talent as composers, singers and instrumentalists, but who were not, in the main, formally schooled. Despite their lack of acquaintance with the largely European body of formalisms, they wrote and played great stuff. They broke many rules they didn't even know existed. Now, in 2006, we have figures, such as Wynton Marsalis, who compose and play in a manner that respects BOTH the formal musical culture and its bastard brother jazz. * * * * * Anyhow, I need to get back to being the village ogre. [drools, smacks lips] Fred | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Valued Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 298 Registered: 10-2005 |
Actually, while I spoke both of tradition and of imitation, I confuse neither with rules. I do conflate them to an extent, and with good reason. If you mean to limit "rules" to "the rules of formal verse", then yes, of course you're right. But the limitation does not come from you, it comes from the phrase you are interpreting. "You must learn the rules before you can break them." In this phrase, the word "rules" is used more liberally out of the necessity of succinct phraseology. In this case, the "rules" include the rules of metrics and the rhyme schemes of formal verse, but they also include the whole of poetics, the body of work as a whole that we look to as "poetry", a body each of us affects and adds to with each poetic expression of our own. In any case, you and I are bound to disagree on some points, as I have considerable quarrel with "teach and entertain" as the object of a poem... all apologies to Dr. Johnson. The day of the didactic poem is done, and what teaching there is in a poem ought to be that discovered by the reader, not held out by the writer. And entertainment would only be my goal in an extremely loose sense of the word. If elucidation of a subjective experience is entertainment, so be it. I believe the object of the poem is to express that which cannot be expressed any other way. To make the ineffable "effable", as it were. More showing than teaching, more presenting than entertaining. That's on to another topic entirely, of course. And a poem may have many goals. I don't think a poem "should" teach and entertain. I think it may. I think perhaps that is a laudable goal for some poets. But it's certainly a restrictive rule... I'm glad I know it. Makes it much more fun to break. "I had a lover's quarrel with the world." ~Robert Frost | ||
| Karen L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1231 Registered: 08-2004 |
you know, all of this "rule" talk is one thing... But you had better know your subject well enough to describe in such a way that captures a reader, or boredom sets in quickly, and I don't care how well written something is, using form or not, if the subject is blah, well, it's just blah. I believe the art of poetry (or any art) begins in childhood, before the age of five. This is why it is SO important to be imaginative with toddlers. Personally, I want to chase the ogre and forget about the lessons, but that's just how I am. I'm lucky to have had a great Aunt that would slap you silly if you didn't speak properly-- I never ask where something's at without looking first between the A and T. (((smile))) Karen | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Valued Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 299 Registered: 10-2005 |
Fred: American jazz arose out of a cohort of musicians who had enormous talent as composers, singers and instrumentalists, but who were not, in the main, formally schooled. An awareness of rules and, by extension, tradition, has never required formal schooling. Rather than repeat myself, I'll re-post an excerpt from a former post of my own in this thread that you may have missed. Me: I often refer to Walt Whitman as an example. He popularized free verse, though he certainly didn't invent it. He was not a collegiate man of letters. Sure, he was well-versed in Dante and Shakespeare and spent time as a teacher... but it was many years before current certification standards were followed and he was largely self-taught. Among his primary influences were the Bible and Italian opera... not exactly the standard for poets of his day." Branching out and trying new things is not only laudable, it often produces such amazing and divergent paths as jazz or free verse. Agreed. And there may be moments when someone who is completely unschooled manages something never done before, perhaps even as the result of not feeling restricted by formal rules that person is unfamiliar with. But that's the exception, not the norm, even when we are speaking about new forms springing into being. If you can see a canvas of what's come before, you can drop your paint outside of it. More often than not, if you do not see that canvas, you will think you are painting beyond its borders when, in reality, you are painting well inside the lines. "I had a lover's quarrel with the world." ~Robert Frost | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Valued Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 300 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hi Karen, "you had better know your subject well enough / to describe in such a way that captures a reader" A different topic, as you freely admit, but I whole-heartedly agree. That is perhaps the difference in knowing what you are writing about as opposed to how you go about doing that writing. In any case, a truism. Knowing your subject allows you to write about it. If you are writing about that which you do not know, how can you write anything worth reading? All too many writers go that route anyway, of course. One needs not have personally experienced something to write about it. I can write about being a cowboy, though I've never been one, for instance. But before I do, it will serve me to talk to a cowboy, to visit a ranch, to ride a horse, to study the field. If I don't, I'll have little enough to share. And if I don't have a real interest in the life of a cowboy myself, writing about it is probably pointless no matter how much I study it. But I have not been an astronaut, either... few people will be, at least in our lifetimes. Should I not write about cowboys and astronauts? (Space Cowboys!) Of course I have no such restriction. But the more I know about the field, the more easily and realistically I can bring my imagination to bear. I really need to get some things done... I'll be back later. Great diversion in this ongoing conversation, though! ~Jeff (Message edited by Runatyr on July 18, 2006) "I had a lover's quarrel with the world." ~Robert Frost | ||
| Karen L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1232 Registered: 08-2004 |
Ah! Cowboys and bears... Now you have my attention. If you ever need to know ANYTHING about cowboys just ask me. I know everything there is need to know about cowboys, that is, from the neck down. I also channel John Wayne from time to time on AMC. I have had a bear in the backyard to scare bushwackers away since 1998, so I know a little about them as well. (((smile))) Karen | ||
| Deborah P Kolodji
Intermediate Member Username: dkolodji Post Number: 474 Registered: 04-2005 |
I'm coming late to this discussion. As M said, the heart is key. If there is no heart to your poetry there is nothing, just a bunch of words strung together randomly which might make a pretty pattern but doesn't say anything. That said, as poets, I do feel we owe it to ourselves to learn the tools we have at our disposal. And I don't think that learning the technical aspects of poetry is easy. I think it takes years of study to learn to use the tools effectively. For example, at one point in my career, I decided that my work was too wordy. So, I decided to learn something about minimalism which led me to a five year intensive study of Japanese haiku. I still feel I'm a beginner at haiku. But, I'm loving the journey. I also believe that fine poetry is carefully crafted. I love free verse, but I think it needs to be crafted, too. I become annoyed with long rambling sloppy poems and don't finish reading them. When we study formal poetry, whether it be a sonnet, a villanelle, a cinquain, or study Asian forms of poetry like tanka and haiku, we can only become better poets in whatever form our next poem takes. I plan to continue studying poetry for the rest of my life. What I learned in my "Introduction to Poetry" class has only whetted my appetite for studying more poets and their works. As a poet, I see the continued study of poetry as a life long vocation as much as writing it. Deborah P Kolodji www.livejournal.com/~dkolodji www.kolodji.com Editor, Amaze: The Cinquain Journal Amaze: The Cinquain Journal | ||
| Fred Longworth
Valued Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 115 Registered: 05-2006 |
There's a difference between learning to use a hammer to drive a nail properly -- in other words, as a tool -- and being overwhelmed by some pundit who thinks he or she is the last word on carpentry and "persuades" many an apprentice that the hammer will miter a corner or stain a piece of ash. One thing I've noticed unceasingly: both in face-and-face workshops and on the net: theories of "good poetry" abound -- and practically to the last one of them they're as overapplied as Tammy Faye's makeup. One expert will denounce gerunds and participles, and insist that like germs they should be sanitized away. Another will insist on accessibility, as if we were all children being spoken to by our kindergarten teacher. A third will require that all the metaphors in a poem cohere thematically, and rail against writing with rough, ungainly edges as a kind of literary bad hair day. Still another will insist that without some threshold level of internal rhyme the poem has the musicality of flying dumpster lids on trash day. It goes on . . . Poems should avoid hot-button issues because they might offend sensitive readers, as if the fundamental goal of poetry were to be eloquently nice. Poems should be written in stanzas with equal numbers of lines, like window layouts from buildings in the Eisenhower administration. A poet should write no more than one poem for every hundred he or she has read, as if the Muses kept a balance sheet. A poet should never write in the first person (too bad Robert Frost never listened to this expert.) You should only write about what you know, thus obviating the poem as a learning experience. Men should not write about the experiences of women, and women should not write about the experiences of men, and neither should write about the experiences of children and animals. Do not -- I repeat -- do not end a line at a syntactic boundary. If you do, I'm sending the goons after you. You'll be sorry! Avoid cliches like the plague. More than anything I've ever asked of you, I insist that you avoid hyperbole. Use the natural rhythm of ordinary speech, or you will be thought of as a stilted, stuck up creep; but, for God's sake, lift your writing above checkout line small talk. So, yes, I'm weary of rules, especially the rules of the 1,257,338,026 know-it-alls including myself who lay siege to other poets like the Army of Redemption. But I'll tell you . . . Best Words, Best Order by Stephen Dobyns is the ONLY "how to" book that's worth a damn. And, if you DON'T read it, and follow his suggestions to the letter -- or even beyond the letter to the very serifs -- you are nothing. Fred POSTSCRIPT: Migod! Ava took me seriously -- even to the final "you are nothing." What is wrong with that damn satirometer I keep by my keyboard. It was in the blue zone all during my post. [Longworth pulls out handkerchief, weeps] (Message edited by sandiegopoet on July 19, 2006) | ||
| Deborah P Kolodji
Intermediate Member Username: dkolodji Post Number: 477 Registered: 04-2005 |
Hmmm. Fred, was it something I said? Deborah P Kolodji www.livejournal.com/~dkolodji www.kolodji.com Editor, Amaze: The Cinquain Journal Amaze: The Cinquain Journal | ||
| Ava South
Intermediate Member Username: avasouth Post Number: 338 Registered: 05-2006 |
I get it, Fred. Those of us who are learning ought just to put away our pencils and go to school instead of writing poetry. No. I still write. I ask for help to make what I write better and keep writing. It's what I do, even when I do it badly. If I offend you, you may send your goons. Lighten up, Fred. We're all learning here. ~smile~ I will check out the book. (Message edited by avasouth on July 19, 2006) Ava | ||
| LJ Cohen
Moderator Username: ljc Post Number: 5118 Registered: 07-2002 |
So here's my take on this. It's not a dichotomy. Poetry emerges from the musicality of language and a rich heritage of forms. "Rules" as such are not only the rules of a particular form, but are also the rules of language. An extreme example of writing with disregard of any form and any emotion is taking a found poem from google searching: http://www.leevilehto.net/google/google.asp (Found poetry in which the poet *crafts* the found lines into some structure is a different kettle of fish.) Writing with no regard to form or technique and just vomiting emotion on the page can lead to rambling, incoherent narrative. But writing with a slavish devotion to form without regard to the emotional overtones of the content can lead to stilted, robotic poems that connect with no one. My own free verse has evolved toward incorporating some elements of structure, particularly paying attention to meter (in a loose way) and using more crafted stanzas, eg, couplets, tercets, etc. I do return to very specific forms, like the sestina or villanelle when I'm feeling blocked in my writing. Sometimes writing to the constraints of form can open the floodgates. I also thing there is a difference between writing poetry with a lower case 'p', verses writing Poetry with an upper case 'P'. I write lots of 'poetry' that I never share, nor work on to revise and refine it to a piece of art. Perhaps it is the difference between a working sketch and a finished painting. I am pleased at the depth of responses to this question! best, ljc Once in a Blue Muse Blog | ||
| LJ Cohen
Moderator Username: ljc Post Number: 5119 Registered: 07-2002 |
Guys--Fred was being playful and sarcastic, I do believe. ljc Once in a Blue Muse Blog | ||
| Karen L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1241 Registered: 08-2004 |
I won't buy the book. Send the goons, we'll barbecue them after the hangings on Sunday. You can't scare me, I have children. (((smile))) Karen | ||
| Fred Longworth
Valued Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 118 Registered: 05-2006 |
I will scare your children, and make you watch. | ||
| Karen L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1243 Registered: 08-2004 |
LOL Good luck with THAT! I'll bring the popcorn. (((smile))) | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Intermediate Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 306 Registered: 10-2005 |
The "rules" I initially addressed was a word in the context of a very specific phrase about learning and breaking them. The sort of rules Fred lists can certainly be adhered to or ignored at will. Maybe good stuff to mull over, but never to become a slave to. In any case, for the most part these are not "rules" but guidelines or suggestions, depending on who's giving them out, of course. Some adjectives you cannot do without, though too many might make a mess of your poem. But somehow it worked for Whitman. Or ending a poem with a question mark might be a weak ending. But somehow that worked for Langston Hughes. So. Take what you need and leave the rest. Know your own poem and your own voice well enough to work the iron of language into whatever shape you will. And of course, know the language and know it well. And speaking of must-read poetry books that should be adhered to at all costs lest one risk a terrible death by opening some other, lesser work, try "Poetry for Dummies". Seriously. I bought it when I was running a poetry clinic last summer, figuring it might be useful for some group exercises, and I found myself not only reading it cover-to-cover but learning a great deal myself. And much of what I gathered in bits and pieces over the course of many years and courses is there. It's great. It covers the history of poetry, various forms, how to write poetry, exercises for poets, a section on great poems and what makes them great, tons of wonderful poems scattered throughout. It was produced at the Poetry Center at San Diego University and it's both thorough and accessible. (And even if a poem ought not necessarily be accessible, it's nice when a book about poetry is!) Pros and newcomers to the field alike will find something useful in it. Don't be thrown by the title. ~Jeff "I had a lover's quarrel with the world." ~Robert Frost | ||
| Karen L Monahan
Advanced Member Username: klhmonahan Post Number: 1244 Registered: 08-2004 |
speaking of the Dummies book, the publisher asked for any ideas to be sent to him-- (I'll have to find his email addy... I posted it here, a few weeks back) He has, like, nearly 1000 titles, so to come up with a new one would be tough. But it's a HUGE opportunity for the writer who can come up with an idea, and then follow through with the content. Perhaps a "How to be an elected official" for Dummies would work? LOL Seriously, probably a good one. (((smile))) Karen | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Senior Member Username: garyb Post Number: 8634 Registered: 07-2001 |
Dummies for Congressmen would be a redundency. Mensa for Dummies might be a best seller. Bomb-making for Dummies and move out of the neighborhood. But back to form. If you profess to classical poetry, say anything Frost and earlier (except Walt), or desire to sonnet or some other form long on meter and rhyme, you need to study the form and practice if you were going to Carnegie Hall. If you desire to learn one of the minimals - haiku, tanka, etc, you need a grounding in at least the classical versions and history in order to understand what the form is attempting. (And by the way, what we do in the trains is seldom it.) If you aspire to free forms, read and then read some more. You might find vers libre is not free. And at the risk of raising howls, poetry must contain some poetic element, or is either noise or prose or both. Smiles and thanks for the discussion. Gary A River Transformed The Dawg House July FireWeed more War/Peace | ||
| Ava South
Intermediate Member Username: avasouth Post Number: 339 Registered: 05-2006 |
I am a clattering noise offending ears of poets everywhere. I write because my thoughts must have an outlet. Prose or poetry, whatever you choose to call it, it is mine. What a discussion! I am so ignorant. I suppose 70+ years of living does not a poet make, but I'll still keep at it. One of these days I may actually learn something. Thanks for the kind words, Jeff. I'm trying to keep my mind alert by studying and learning, but my poor ol' body is lagging far behind. ;-D (Message edited by avasouth on July 19, 2006) Ava | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Senior Member Username: garyb Post Number: 8638 Registered: 07-2001 |
Ava, you are a poet. Perhaps one of a different stripe, but then consider the difference between Ginsberg and Frost, Whitman and Doone, Smart and everyone else. Smiles. Gary A River Transformed The Dawg House July FireWeed more War/Peace |
