The Guide; Part I: General Poetry Writing

[Frost]

I've taken it upon myself to write a brief guide on poetry. Browsing the forums I see alot of the same problems arising in each and everyone of people's poems, and alot of unoriginallity. Whether this is a consequence of similar influence, or plain and simple unoriginallity, I don't really know. But it's not the point. The point is, that the standard of poetry here is not that high, no matter what people think.

So. Three of the main thing's I see that people lack in their poetry is this:
1. Metaphor
2. Originallity
3. Grammar

Now, for the remedies.

Metaphor


Metaphor and simile are two of the best known tropes and are often mentioned together as examples of rhetorical figures. Metaphor and simile are both terms that describe a comparison: the only difference between a metaphor and a simile is that a simile makes the comparison explicit by using "like" or "as." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, explains the difference as:

a simile states that A is like B, a metaphor states that A is B or substitutes B for A.
According to this definition, then, "You are my sunshine" is a metaphor whereas "Your eyes are like the sun" is a simile. However, some describe similes as simply a specific type of metaphor (see Joseph Kelly's The Seagull Reader (2005), pages 377-379); in this case, metaphor is the umbrella term for making comparisons between unlike concepts, and simile describes the figure where one makes the comparison explicit.

Usually, similes and metaphors could easily be interchanged. For example remove the word 'like' from William Shakespeare's simile, "Death lies on her, like an untimely frost," and it becomes "Death lies on her, an untimely frost," which retains almost exactly the same meaning.

Despite the similarity of the two figures, the distinction between them is often focused upon when the terms are introduced to students. "Not knowing the difference between a simile and a metaphor" is sometimes used as a euphemism for knowing little about rhetoric or literature, and many lists of literary terms define metaphor as "a comparison not using like or as", showing the emphasis often put on this distinction.

Although in practice their use is often synonymous, in a rigorous sense, their meanings can be understood to be quite different. Whereas simile explicitly describes a comparison, metaphor asserts an identity. A simile always expresses something trivially true (anything can be likened to anything else), whereas a metaphor always expresses something patently false (which the listener must then make sense of). In other words, one could argue that when listening to an active metaphor, the listener always visualizes something false before analyzing the phrase metaphorically. On the other hand, a simile requires a different kind of analysis: the listener is explicitly asked to compare two objects rather than being forced to when confronted with an otherwise nonsensical phrase. In both cases, this analysis depends on the assumption that listeners think of the literal meaning first, which is only guaranteed when a comparison is fresh.

There are cases where the use of a simile rather than a metaphor makes a clear difference in meaning or listener expectation. Using a simile as opposed to a metaphor can clarify an analogy by calling out exactly what is being compared. "He had a posture like a question mark" (Corbett, Classical rhetoric for the modern student (1971), page 479) has one possible interpretation, that the shape of the posture is that of a question mark, whereas "His posture was a question mark" has at least a second interpretation, that the reason for the posture is in question. Using a simile rather than a metaphor can add meaning by calling attention to the process of comparison, as in, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." The point is not to compare a person to a fish, but to ask the reader to consider how the woman is like the fish. Similarly, when speakers wish to call attention to a particularly unexpected comparison, they typically use a simile rather than a metaphor, as in the Magnetic Fields line, "When I'm with you, it's like I'm on the moon; I can hardly breathe but I feel lighter." Finally, similes are often more convenient than metaphors when analogizing actions as opposed to things: "Wide sleeves fluttering like wings" (Marcel Proust) does not translate easily from simile to metaphor. A final difference is that in practice, often-used metaphors can "wear away" into dead metaphors as listeners come to learn metaphorical meanings by rote rather than making sense of seemingly nonsensical assertions, whereas a simile, because it explicitly calls attention to the act of comparison, is not as susceptible to the loss of metaphoricity. Thus, although for fresh comparisons metaphors are typically seen as "stronger" than similes, similes can retain their metaphorical nature more consistently than metaphors precisely because they are not likely to be reanalyzed as secondary meanings of words or phrases


In short, metaphor is an effective method of taking one object and either glorifing it, destroying it, comparing it etc. Shorter again, it's making an object/feeling/emotion more interesting. In poetry, this is very important. Metaphor is also closely linked with personification in poetry. Say you want to write a poem about a 'broken heart'. Bang, you've already got a metaphor of sorts, how can a heart be broken? It's metaphorical. That's where number two comes in - originallity. How many songs do you know about broken hearts? Everyone from angsty pre-teens to seasoned country-western music vert's have been writing them for years. The difference between the good and the bad? Originallity. The road to originallity? Metaphor(this term also includes the afore mentioned personification and simile).

Here's an example:

Green tree leaves bang on my tin roof, noisily.

That's an uninteresting version of what tree's do in the wind. However, if one uses metaphor too completely change the tree:

Arrows from the bows of nature's silent warriors pound the tin roof, noisily

Pretty epic. That's just my style of writing - you may have something different. The point is, the second is vastly more intersting than the first.

Now, the third section. Grammar. Grammar is a vital part of all writing, though it's often neglected in poetry. One of the things you DO NOT need to in poetry, is put a comma at the end of each line. That's a very old-school thing to do, but still taught in most schools. Very un neccessary. Grammar also assists with other two sections of this guide. If your writing sentences like you would in prose, and putting it into poetry, it's obviously not going to sound good. The reason? The use of grammar is different between the two. Grammar also helps to double up meanings and add depth, if used well. Line breaks also assist with this, and I often group these two things in the same catergory. Observe:

"We are the best of the best we are fake"

That's a line from my most recent piece(Curtain Calls - Stage: Perdition, checkit!). Now, if I'd actually put that into my piece, it'd be a major flaw - it's only one line, but it's lacking flow, and is on the whole uninteresting. If we add some grammar into this, what happens?

"We are the best of the best;
We are fake."

You get a far more intersting two lines. The colon at the end adds suspense to the next line, anticipation. A lead-up. And all it took was one little piece of grammar. The line break also exaggerates this, and the punch line of that particular part is delivered with finallity with a full stop at the end.




Ok. So more or less, after those three major thing's Ive mentioned, you'll be set for good, original poems. It'll take practice. Everything takes practice. It's taken me a year too get where I am now. But if you practice implementing these devices, you'll get there.

Look out for Part II: Critique[/i]

[theverbamar]

^^

neat little guide
here

[Gannon]

I appreciate what you've done here, mighty informative it is too. And, I'm sure it will help some. However, poetry needn't contain any element. Originality is key I agree, for banal poetry is boring. We don't want well-trodden adolescent musings, but original thought-provoking (adolescent) musings.
Lack of punctuation can be original if thought about, and metaphor can be over used and end up plain annoying.

My advice: consider semantics vs. pragmatics. What is semantically encoded by the words you are using, compared with what is pragmatically inferred by them.

[Myst]

Arrows from the bows of nature's silent warriors pound the tin roof, noisily

It may have good imagery, but the line is too long. Maybe use a line break and some grammar.

"Arrows from the bows
of nature's silent warriors;
pound the tin roof, noisily."

I know it was meant as an example but I was obsessing over it for some reason. XDD


My advice: consider semantics vs. pragmatics. What is semantically encoded by the words you are using, compared with what is pragmatically inferred by them.

Could you phrase that simpler? Big words frighten me silly.

[Gannon]

Semantics concerns itself with what the words used actually say (dictionary style) and pragmatics concerns itself with the meaning they convey. It is always worth considering both when writing in my opinion.

[Myst]

Oh, I see. Thanks for dumbing it down for my mental consumption. =P

[SeaBreeze]

Lmao.

[SnipSnap]

Here's another guide from another site that might help:

Kudos to Pi and Isis and all others

http://www.teenagewriters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2178

It's sanctioned in parts, so just navigate yourself around the thread accordingly.

[Isis]

One of the things you DO NOT need to in poetry, is put a comma at the end of each line. That's a very old-school thing to do, but still taught in most schools.
Thank you! I really wish schools taught poetry in a more interesting, less rigid way. Kudos. I look forward to the next installment.

[Adam D. Oneirical]

how bout a guide with the elements of poetry, that would be nice

[mammamaia]

However, poetry needn't contain any grammar

...huh!?... try writing anything containing words that has no grammar!... be it piss-poor, or perfect, all writing 'contains grammar'...

[Eoz Eanj]

It would be interesting to see an elaboration of the main conventions of poetry, I believe a lesson in narration and p.o.v would be benefical.

Btw grammar is just a convention to create meaning- i'm sure that someone has deliberately not included grammar in their work to create a particular meaning- basic manipulation of conventions i'm sure. Writing sure is an art, I must say.

[Cogito]

I too would like to see guidelines on the fundamental elements of poetry. Poetry is a somewhat opaque topic for me. A lot of what I see described as poetry appears to me to be a sequence of phrases stacked together without any structure or discipline.

When is it free-form poetry, and when is it self-indulgent drivel?

I know that there are poetry elements of rhyme, rhythm or tempo, and imagery. I also know that many forms of poetry eschew rhyming. But where does it stop being poetry?

I'm not on a rant here. I'm truly lost on this question, and would like to hear views from those who have studied poetry.

[Isis]

When is it free-form poetry, and when is it self-indulgent drivel?

I know that there are poetry elements of rhyme, rhythm or tempo, and imagery. I also know that many forms of poetry eschew rhyming. But where does it stop being poetry?
That can be hard to say, because you get the prose/poetry/prose-poetry debate going and then all hell can break loose. Rhyme certainly doesn't define poetry, though musical devices are nice and some kind of internal rhythm/sound/flow is very necessary ... even if poetry doesn't follow formal meter it should flow forward, and sound good, and have sound reflect meaning.

Linebreaks don't define poetry either, and I think that's the biggest problem. A lot of beginners will bleed all their OH WOE EMOTION onto paper, put in linebreaks, and call it poetry. Poetry is an art. it can be about self-expression, and most of the best poetry is emotion, very much a product of self-expression. But a lot of people get caught in "poetry is what you make of it" and "poetry is a way of expressing your feelings" which is only true if poetry is also an art and you pay attention to that art. For freeverse, even form poems, that means - first and foremost - figurative language. Without figurative language, without imagery and metaphor and word choice that evokes something greater than the literal, you don't have a poem. You have prose with line breaks, even if it rhymes. If you can rewrite your poem in paragraphs without changing anything at all in its meaning or significance, it's probably prose and should be revisited if it's meant to be poetry.

Freeverse doesn't mean "no rules", and that's a common misconception... especially on the internet and with beginners, because there are very clear divisions between the freeverse and the more formal work, and because not a lot of people are introduced to good freeverse in school, and don't seek any out later when they go to write poetry. If you're looking for poems posted on forums, and you're reading freeverse and thinking 'well this isn't poetry' then it might not be. Poetry that's all over the place, without thought or intent, is about as effective as a whip with a wet noodle. Most good freeverse has some kind of internal structure - be it the cadence of the lines, the order of images, a set progression or cycle of ideas. All good freeverse has to make effective use of diction and syntax, imagery, metaphor,(and other devices, but those are the most important)

[Cogito]

So, if someone asks me to look over their poem, and I cannot discern a structure, or a rhythmic pattern, would it be considered confrontational to ask them what makes it a poem in their eyes?

I want to be constructive, but not just throw out flattery.

[Isis]

I'm no diplomat but I'd say that if you could ask them what they define as a poem/what makes it a poem and be curious rather than obnoxious, that would actually be helpful - the writer would have to think about it, the reviewers would have to think about their response, and so on. People have different definitions... it can help to know if someone doesn't really know much about poetry or if they just have a very different definition than you do. There's probably stuff I'd consider poetry that you wouldn't, and vise versa; that doesn't make it bad/invalid writing, just raises the "is it poetry?" question. It's a different story when a writer is new to the whole thing [and so needs guidance on everything, from rhythmic structures to imagery] or just uses poetry as therapy.

[mammamaia]

po·et·ry
–noun
1. the art of rhythmical composition, written or spoken, for exciting pleasure by beautiful, imaginative, or elevated thoughts.

2. literary work in metrical form; verse.

3. prose with poetic qualities.

vs


dog·ger·el
–adjective
1. (of verse)
a. comic or burlesque, and usually loose or irregular in measure.

b. rude; crude; poor.

–noun
2. doggerel verse.

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME; see dog, -rel; cf. dog Latin]


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


'nuff said?

[Cogito]

not for the depth of answer I was looking for, mamma, sorry. But thanks though. I guess I have some homework to do.

I don't really expect to become a master at evaluating poetry, but I want to understand it well enough to not make a complete fool of myself or give horrible suggestions.

[SnipSnap]

I think poetry is beyond being put into words. I think poetry is an emotion that can be potrayed through the use of images- not words, but they sure do help to make images. I'm not sure how people ever thought they had to "get" poetry. I see people constantly bombard poets with "I don't get it"'s. If your mathematically savvy, think of poetry as an undefined variable (an emotion), and the poet has to create an equation, formula, or even inequality (haha, that's e.e. cummings-styled things if you're not catching onto my bad metaphor, here) to help the reader "solve" what that emotion is. Solving an emotion is easier than solving an equation if the equation is written well and correctly, meaning it has clear imagery and portrays something playfully and unbalefully.

The thing you have to do when reading poetry is open yourself up, and ask yourself the famous cliched question: "How does this make me feel?" If it makes you happy, then it's probably a poem explaining something happy. After you have "solved" the emotion, it's now your job to go into the poem and look into every nook and cranny, trying to figure out the images that are being used, what poetic devices [i.e. alliteration, my favorite; cacophony, basically the opposite of alliteration :D; personification, and metaphor, just to name a few.]

I think people started making poetry too complicated after emily dickinson came along. Don't get me wrong, she wrote great poetry, it's just that people over-analyzed her stuff simply because should let most of her stuff get published and her supposed sexuality, people just stupidly assumed that there were hidden meanings in there about all the stuff she "hid inside" as one horribly awful poet put it recently. Poetry is so much more simpler than that.

All you have to simply do is wonder why the poet put things where they are. It's probably best to start w/ professional poets before you move onto poetry on the site, because none of us are very profession compared to people like Robert Frost and Emily Dickinson.

Just take a look at some poetry and look for an emotion. Don't overanalyze and don't be intimidated. That's how you start becoming efficient in poetry.

Hope that was useful to you, or I just wasted about 15 minutes.

[mammamaia]

the best poetry is about much more than just 'emotion'... you should also look for 'meaning'... is it accessible/clear?... or so buried in fancified wording that you can't find it?....

and look for good-to-exceptional use of language, especially in re 'imagery'... plus, aptness of word choices and an absence of cliches...

all of that is what sets a good-to-great poem apart from 'doggerel'...

[Cogito]

Thank you, SnipSnap and mammamaia. You have given me some good ideas to chew on here.

[mammamaia]

glad to oblige, cog!

hugs, m

[Etan Isar]

Um.. is there somewhere on this forum that goes into detail on poetic device and structure? Having read a few of the poems here, I think that would greatly improve quality... I don't really see a guide here(despite the title).

[Cogito]

I don't think there is a collected guide of that nature. We have threads on individual elements of poetry under Writing Issues, and there may be some offsite links contributed in various places.

Certainly if you do have some thoughts or suggestions in that regard, you should begin a thread in the Writing Issues forum. Much of the poetry posted here tends to eschew formal structure, but that;s no reason to to suggest it and challenge people to experiment with it.

[Etan Isar]

I looked through the poetry section in "Writing Issues" and it did no have a topic on the common mechanics of poetry(as far as I could tell.) Do you think there would be interest in a thread doing so?

[SeaBreeze]

Sry, wrong thread.

[Frost]

Wow, there's been replies here and I havent even noticed. I notice a couple of comments asking about guides to elements of poetry and what not. Im in exam time at the minute, but Ill see what I can do anyway.

[SnipSnap]

I've been working on a poetry guide of sorts for a while ... and it's almost acceptable to be shown to the public. It includes different elements of poetry, different ways poetry can be distinguishable between the different "types." I gave a brief description on many different kinds of structural poetry, but that secton is in no way complete if someone wishes to add to it. I make it a point of pointing out past poets and giving links to some of their works. There's other sections that might prove useful to many of the members nd you might expect this guide in a week or two. If it's not up by then, pm me and remind me; I forget about things easily.

[mammamaia]

here are links to the most helpful poetry sites [for the best alphabetic rundown of scansion definitions and another great one on structure, you'll have to email me, as they're no longer available on the web and too long to post here... but if you want to set up a separate thread for them, let me know and i'll be glad to do so]:

American Poems list of Poets - Currently 237 different authors listed. (http://www.americanpoems.com/poets)

http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/index.html

PoetryConnection.net :: Your Connection to Great Poetry (http://www.poetryconnection.net/)

love and hugs, maia
maia3maia@hotmail.com

[Cogito]

Thanks mammamaia. I'm adding these links to the Writing Resource Links thread in General Writing.

[SnipSnap]

Excellent. These sites look awesome. One can never have too many resources when it comes to such a wide topic. Thanks, m'dear.

[mammamaia]

good idea, cog... might want to sticky them in the poetry section, too, for those who don't go to the prose sections very often [or at all]...

you're quite welcome, ss!

[Cogito]

This is a stickied thread, so it's already taken care of.

Thanks again, mammamaia!

[ivy]

I would love to be able to write poetry that really moves people. Some poets can spin such lovely, fluid phrases they make you ache to read them. Others have a knack for painting vivid pictures with their words, or inventing metaphors stunning in their truth and profundity... Unfortunately, my own stabs at poetry generally result in verse as stale square and stale and dry as a cardboard box.

My hope is that, just as in writing prose, it's possible to improve with practice. But how? Can someone give me some practical steps to... I don't know, write good metaphors? Distill my thoughts better? Is it just something you're either born with or not?

[andycerrone]

This is a HUGELY helpful guide to writing great poetry written up by Robert Pinsky, an extremely talented poet that I've met a few times. This is from his book The Sounds of Poetry and is simply wonderful.

1. The poet is the enemy of cliche; avoid at all costs.
2. The poet is the enemy of abstraction. Define, redefine, disconnect, clarify and paint the abstraction in great detail.
3. Does your poem SOUND good? Are the rhythms clunky? Are the beats correct?
4. Is there a clear POV?
5. Are your lines pared down to the absolute necessity of meaning?
6. Do the lines make the most efficient use of enjambment?
7. Have you avoided ornamental and decorative words? Cut out as many adjectives and adverbs as possible.
8. Do you have clear images that the reader can really see and hold on to?
9. Sometimes the image is enough. Just let it be and exist. (I.E. William Carlos Williams)
10. Is the form appropriate for the content?
11. Does the poem make the best use of its space?
12. Is there an economy of language present? Are there wasted words?
13. Is there strong voice(s) in the poem?
14. Do your poems refuse to be easy? If the reader knows where it's going, they will not read it.
15. Is the poem surprising?
16. Does your poem take risks? What is the payoff?
17. Are your poems passionate? Do you feel like you die if you had not written that poem?
18. Have you avoided over-poeticizing?
19. Have you considered where your poems fit in the tradition of poetry? What elements have you borrowed/rejected?
20. Do you have good process? Quiet space, set times, journal, etc.?
21. Are YOU in love with your poems? Are they the BEST work you can produce now?

Hope this helps! And buy that book, you won't regret it!!

[candyg]

Okay,before l joined this website today l was happy,confident and eager to write my poems.Reading others comments and other topics it has come to my attention that how l write my poems is wrong.I never thought there was a wrong or right way to write poems only that you put your thought into something that makes sense,rhymes, and touches your own heart and if it touches someone elses heart thats a bonus.People on other topics have spoken about poor poems,what is a poor poem? I thought poetry was a gift,now l am starting to wonder if l should go and study poetry so l can be classed as a poet even though l am passionate about writing my own poems.So please educate me!!!

[mammamaia]

the way i see it....

poetry is the most 'refined' of all the written arts, takes the most skill to master... when approached and created as an art form, not merely a pastime, is when poems of merit, with lasting appeal to readers of all sorts will result...

it's the same with 'art'... anyone can draw a picture and anyone can write what seems to be a poem... but only a rare few have the talent and skill that can transcend the commercial/greeting card art/doggerel versions, to create a picture or poem that will be considered 'fine' art or 'real' poetry that garners the respect of the art/literary world, commands the highest prices and lasts far beyond the lifetime of the creator...

lots of people like the kind of poems they read in greeting cards and found in the poetry sections of websites, but lots of people also like poorly-written books and 'art' work that few would pay top money for or go to a gallery to see... that doesn't mean the poorly written book isn't a novel, or the slapdash picture isn't a painting, or that the 'poor' poem isn't a poem... only that they're not at the 'art' level...

and it doesn't mean that their creators shouldn't enjoy making them, or that those who say they like them shouldn't... only that few, if any, would pay the going price for works of the generally acknowledged best, to read/see/own them...

and, btw, all 'poems' don't have to rhyme and many of the best don't... if all of yours do, that's fine, if it's what you prefer to write, but rhyming's not a requirement for poetry... many of the hundreds of my own don't, though i do enjoy playing with rhyme, often even using a seemigly-erratic interior rhyme, rather than the old standard end-line rhyme... you might want to try, it... it's fun!

love and hugs, maia

[evizaer]

I may have to write something about poetry to fill in the gaps here. No one has addressed some of the more important topics like the abstract vs. the concrete, managing meaning, focus, concision, and personification.

[cawalabe]

All poetry needs discipline to be called poetry. A set number of syllables per line, a set number of lines per stanza, or a set number of words per line etc., and heaven forbid anyone should actually take the time to work out iambic accents of hard/soft, hard/soft, hard/soft or at least some kind of rational scheme. Are those things difficult? Of course--that's what makes it poetry. Without these things it's just free verse, and free verse is nothing but rambling prose with a poetic pretense.

Now you can come up with all kinds of interesting variations rather than stick to a fixed metrical pattern. Instead of say ten syllables per line you could have ten in the first line followed by six in the next and then keep alternating them. Instead of syllables you can take the easy way out and have a set number of words, or you could even have something childlike that's similar to a Cinquain where the first line consist of only one word followed by a two word line, followed by a three word line etc. But without a pattern of some sort there is no meter, and without meter there is no poetry.

[Faelon]

OK, OK...I've read all this
I'm paying rapt attention.
But how to place in every verse
The things that you have mentioned!
'Cause I don't choose the words I write
They simply find my paper.
They live inside my pen I think
Intangible as vapor.

[Cogito]

Sorry, but that is aa bit of a cop out. Poetry doesn't just "happen", it needs to be crafted, shaped, refined. Poetry requires real work to condense it, eliminate unnecessary elements, and sharpen the imagery.

"Spontaneous" verse is just the starting point.

[The Bard of Wigan]

OK, OK...I've read all this
'Cause I don't choose the words I write
They simply find my paper.
They live inside my pen I think
Intangible as vapor.

One word describes this, pretentious.

[mammamaia]

i'll cut her some slack seein' as how she's new here [and just complimented me on one of my poems!]... that was a nicely done little ditty, albeit not really true of the 'art' of poetry, as has been ably noted by our dear and almost always deadly accurate cog...

so, faelon... what's 'spontaneous' is usually 'doggerel'... while a well-crafted piece of poesy is a gem of the highest quality that has been mined, cleaned up, cut into perfect facets and polished to a faretheewell...

i've been a part time, then full time poet for near half a century now, and regardless of how easily my works let themselves out of my brain and through my fingers to pen or keyboard [which is almost all the time], my 'gems' still get the 'working' and 'polishing' any fine jewel deserves... yup, even the sorta silly ones!...

don't take the comments here too personally, as we're all [or nearly all] really a nice bunch of folks and no offense is intended [most of the time]...

love and hugs, maia

[Faelon]

Hey, midst all the Christmas doings I try to get on here and check this site out. It's been fun so far. I do take all the advice very seriously. I have been writing poetry for my own pleasure most of my life but have only had friends and family critique it. They all tell me I should "do something" with it. So yes, I am amatuer. My life has not given me the time I would like to actually study poetry..... But sheesh you guys, where is your sense of humor. It's ok, you don't know me. I don't know you....very well yet... I have been a little surprised at how serious some of these threads get. Maybe it's the melancholic artistic personality, but we all need a good laugh now and then. The little ditty I whipped on on the page before was strictly to bring a smile. I really am learning from all the input here, so please have patience. I plan to post something as soon as I get up my nerve, and will try to polish my poems before I present them for review. I would like to do my best and apply what I am learning here.
Hey, it's -22 here today. Tried to make a poem out of that but my pen froze up.

[wtmckee]

Excellent advice. Line breaks are so crucial to the meaning in the breathing.

And get those similes and metaphors going!

[Justjoshinbyj]

The Romantics believed in the spontaneous verse. They believe in the overwhelming overflow of emotion on paper, that the words that mind chose first are the words the mind chose best.
Ive heard this affirmed by many a renowned poet and author.
Not stating as my own belief, just saying shes not exactly alone. That is a substantial field of thought.

[Cogito]

No. The Romantics rebelled against the impersonal Enlightenism, but they did not eschew struicture, rhythm, and rhyme. The emphasis was on passion and heroism, but not at the expense of form. Look at the poetry of Shelley and Keats for examples of poetry of the Romantic era.

[Justjoshinbyj]

Not so much abandoning form as much as the strictures of revision. They thought the limitless mind could achieve perfection spontaneously, the first time around, and that too greatly changing a rough draft would taint the image and message the mind had found in the moment of inspiration.

[Cogito]

I believe you are mixing your periods. This sounds more like the Freewriting fad attributed to the Beat Generation, and promoted by Kerouac and Ginsberg and friends. It's doubtful whether even they truly followed this doctrine in their own works, although they did try to give that appearance to their writing.

[Gannon]

They thought the limitless mind could achieve perfection spontaneously, the first time around, and that too greatly changing a rough draft would taint the image and message the mind had found in the moment of inspiration.

Also sounds like you may be referring to the ethics of the Surrealists, or to a lesser extent the Dadaists. They believed in the latent power of the freed mind, though as to whether it could produce perfection first time is up for debate now as it was then. Depends on the contextual definition of perfection. If the goal is purely to chart the stream-of-subconcious then perfection is acheived first time, if it to produce worthy literary pieces for antiquity, then revision is most likely needed to ensure the eviction of any poetically void or bland inferences.

I find it implausible that such heavily weighted words flow freely. Yet, the medium and movement, as an inspiration was (and is) potentially productive.

Whilst we're on the topic it is a myth that most Surrealists produced their (best) work with the help of narcotics (including absinthe), as peculiarly most of them found that drugs impaired their ability to think clearly, or in the case of the trance-state proponents, impaired the ability to truly enter a free and productive realm.

[zingsho]

This will be a good start to practice.
My school teachings in English was just vague for me, i was so bad. I'm still struggling.
There wasn't any activities like writing poems or writing, there were essays(bad topics) and how to write applications which we find it so boring,there was no practice.

[ArticulatedInsanity]

I found this site while searching for the different types of poetry. The site shows 51 types of poetry and offers a brief explanation of each. I thought the site would be helpful.

http://www.poemofquotes.com/articles/poetry_forms.php

[monkie]

does poetry have to provoke thought? Does every word have to have a meaning, if a poem rhymes does it subtract sincerity? Rhythm in a poem is as important as a heartbeat in a newborn no?

tell me what makes a good poem, to you?

[Castlesofsand]

I think anything written should provoke thought or an emotion of sorts, or why would a person write? Do words(all words have to have meaning, well yes in a way, no in a way) some words are mere attachments to ease the flow of the idea, some play an important role.

rhythm, i'm not so sure, in the rhyme of things, then i'd say more so, but if talking about free verse, well not so much and it might more get in the way pushing someone to look for the rhyme not there.

what makes a good poem to me? Hard to say, sometimes it's how its been written, the uniqueness of the style, sometimes its the words inside.

I suppose if it touches me, invokes that response, then I like it. It doesn't always have to be a well written poem to do that, sometimes you have to look from the writer's eyes, my life is not theirs, their experiences are not mine. I try to remember that.

thanks for the questions.

now how about you, what are your answers to them?

[mammamaia]

does poetry have to provoke thought?

of course not!... many poems are meant to touch the readers' emotions... or just to share a view/image of something...


Does every word have to have a meaning,

i'll treat that as a separate question, since it really is one... and the answer is 'yes!'... every single word a writer in any medium writes should have a meaning, a good reason for being there... if it doesn't, it shouldn't be there... that's what separates the serious and professional good writers from the amateurs and poor ones...


if a poem rhymes does it subtract sincerity?

...it shouldn't... and it doesn't, for well-written poetry, though to many 'lay' people, it may seem to... that said, the way it's rhyme is arranged can affect how the readers will view its purpose... for instance, a limerick won't be taken as seriously as a sonnet...


Rhythm in a poem is as important as a heartbeat in a newborn no?

...not a very good analogy, but yes, rhythm is important in poetry, as that's one of its prime components... but not all poems have to have an easily discernible rhythm... a lot of good blank verse doesn't seem to have one, yet it still 'flows' well as it's read, which is a rhythm of sorts...


tell me what makes a good poem, to you?

...display of excellent writing skills, apt word choice, clarity of meaning, sparity of wording...

[Castlesofsand]

i agreed with everything you wrote, with the exception of the first about thought, but i suppose it depends on the type of thought, emotion is based on thoughts, or so that's how i took the question to be, you must remember an emotion, the first time you feel love, you don't know what it is, the second time your remember, think back, give it a name. Maybe i took the question too direct.

interesting read and thoughts.

[daydreamer]

Poetry should provoke thought. If it doesn't linger in your mind after you've finished reading the words, doesn't touch your emotions in some way, bring up your own memories, then you haven't connected to the poem. Then they might as well be scribbles on a page.

Each word should earn its place in the poem, hold meaning, add to the poem.

A poem should have some rhythm in the flow of words - even free verse, when it is often very subtle. If it doesn't then you might as well be writing prose.

Rhyme has to be done very well if it isn't to distract from sincerity. If when reading, the rhyme blends in well and the meaning is uppermost then it works. When all you see is the rhyme scheme then sincerity is subtracted.

A good poem is one that touches me in some way, leaves me with images in my head long after I finished the poem.

time passes too quickly. I have to go to work. May come back to this.

[mammamaia]

i took 'provoke thought' to mean there has to be some 'message' that is intended to make the reader consciously 'think' about what is being presented... and i still say 'no' that is not a requisite for all poetry...

many good poems merely make the reader feel good/sad/whatever, or enjoy the imagery of what is being described, just as one would a lovely photo or painting... and i don't consider that as provoking thought... the key word here is 'provoke'...

[Castlesofsand]

i then will disagree, any image is a thought, a comparison to a memory. provoke by a word written. maybe a reader needs to write poetry to see this
I don't know how many times people asked me what i thought of a poem.

interesting thoughts you bring up though

[daydreamer]

Provoke means to stir up, call forth, brig about. There is no measurement of depth so any thought, image, smile, tear that a poem has aroused in the reader is a thought provoked.

[mammamaia]

in which case, the question, "does poetry have to provoke thought?" is a useless one, since anything one writes will automatically do so, whether or not the writer intends it to be done... one could write totally meaningless gibberish and 'provoke thought' by castle and dd's definition, but i doubt that's what the poster had in mind when asking the question...

[Castlesofsand]

possibly but then we aren't the poster, just repliers giving our views

strange how that is

[Edwould1991]

i don't think grammar is that important in poetry... Especially in Syllabillic Verse

(obviously punctuation is important) but I've read some great poems that don't use punctuation at all...

[HKB]

i don't think grammar is that important in poetry... Especially in Syllabillic Verse

(obviously punctuation is important) but I've read some great poems that don't use punctuation at all...

Contrary to popular belief, poetry isn't an excuse or a venue for those who are poor at grammar/punctuation.
It's probably more important than in traditional writing because there aren't editors to fix your mistakes and everything has to be done with intent.

[Cogito]

Edwould has a point though too. Traditional grammar rules may not fully apply to poetry, because poetry need not form full sentences. That doesn't mean grammar is irrelevant, but that it may yield more freely in poetry than in prose.

Nevertheless, grammatical glitches can really ruin the flow of a poem if they aren't purposeful.

[Castlesofsand]

myself, talking here

but the rules of grammar interfer with poetry, if you look at haiku/senryu/haibun and such or even modern day poetry, they break rules all the time.

typical spelling i've seen broken for the flow or rhyme, so i'm with Cog's, tradition grammar does not apply. if you look at some songs its the same there.

so its not used as an excuse, although i agree if the writer ignores it just for the sake of laziness then it should be corrected.

[HKB]

My point was you have to know the rules of grammar in order to break them without looking like an idiot. I like a lot of poetry that plays with grammar and is experimental in that regard.

[Castlesofsand]

ah, well in that point I readily agree

[Etan Isar]

myself, talking here

but the rules of grammar interfer with poetry, if you look at haiku/senryu/haibun and such or even modern day poetry, they break rules all the time.

typical spelling i've seen broken for the flow or rhyme, so i'm with Cog's, tradition grammar does not apply. if you look at some songs its the same there.

so its not used as an excuse, although i agree if the writer ignores it just for the sake of laziness then it should be corrected.

The human mind has an enormous capacity to understand the patterns of language. Grammar is the pattern we use for the easiest everyday communication. In poetry, because we have a longer period to consider the message (by which I do not mean moral), we can use different patterns to achieve different effects. That does not mean we can completely ignore the basic pattern. But it does mean that we can try others. Grammar does not interfere with poetry. There is some beautiful poetry with perfect grammar. What grammar needs to avoid is constraining the poem. There are wonderful poems that use experimental patterns. There are also some crappy ones. Grammar is very important to any form of communication. Just not necessarily standard grammar.

[Castlesofsand]

yes Grammar is important but as i said, and as you hinted, the basics of grammar, the basic rules, such as fullstops/commas placed, is not necessary to show a break or bring attention to words that should be expressed enough as they are. I've seen beautiful poetry with slang in it, and with what others would term as grammatical mistakes. our need to bring all the rules into poetry, i believe is a mistake. the captials for each line and such. if you look at haiku and other forms of poetry from other countries, the grammar rules are slackened.

Standarnd grammar is what i'm talking about, those have seen even those rules broken and still hold a poem to the emotions attached. what i'm saying is simply, poetry has the freedom to do so, as long as it is done correctly and with meaning behind.

interesting read, thanks for your thoughts

[mammamaia]

the captials for each line

that hasn't been the standard for poetry for nearly a century... except, of course, for greeting cards and doggerel displayed on wall plaques... the lines of a poem should be capitalized the same way as if they were prose... unless the poem has no capitals or end punctuation at all, as some do... here are examples of both:


“…by any name…”

Bird flu or bomb attack, what’s the diff?
Hit by either, one’s just as stiff!
Talk of “winning” this battle or that?
Nonsense outa the same old hat!

Birds will fly everywhere, you know…
terrorists freely come and go.
So, to stop bird flu or terror acts,
face the music, folks—face the facts!

You’d have to kill all the birds on earth,
make sure no mother birds give birth,
in order to win the bird flu war,
stop the virus from killing more!

And winning the war on terror, guys,
won’t be till the last human dies!
Like the birds we can’t stop from flying,
we can’t stop martyrs killing, trying
to get revenge for all our lying!

a 20/20 handicap

both blessed and cursed am I,
with a mind’s eye incapable
of being deceived
[self-inflicted or otherwise received]…
an intellect so keen it sees
2 plus 2 as only 4…
one never swayed by
wistful dreams of three’s
nor a greedy need for five

yearn as I may for selective sight,
my brain works non-stop
discerning right from wrong
despite others’ delight
in seeing shades of gray…
black and white to me
are clear as day and night
although dawn or dusk
would be a kind and gentle lie

this gift brings no pleasure nor
the treasures ignorance bestows
on they who know not truth…
those who calm their fears
with years of illusions,
self-delusions that comfort
the willing blind…
my mind sees through
all we choose to hide

handicapped by perfect sight,
blinded by an honest view
of what we do and did
from our beginning to now,
nothing hidden, others’
consciences’ camouflage
won’t work on me…
I see man as he is,
behind his masked facades

a blind spot or two to me,
would be a kindness, not a curse…
20/20 vision like mine, is something much, much worse

[Castlesofsand]

i understand caps and commas and such, i just don't like using them. but understand their importance in some cases. the problem is i never really studied poetry, just wrote it, enjoyed the freedom away from those full stops and large bully letters. lol who knows maybe time spent in a cell makes me fight rules.

but i'm making an efford to change that. its why i'm here.

thanks for the examples M(x4)

[mammamaia]

love your shorthand version of my username!... feel free to call me 'maia' or 'mom' or even 'ma' if it's easier...

and browse the 'philosetry' section of 'writings' on my site, to see the variety of ways i 'break the rules' re structure, with my own poetry...

[Awesome McBadass]

One word describes this, pretentious.

I feel the exact same way about these lines:

"Arrows from the bows of nature's silent warriors pound the tin roof, noisily"

and

"We are the best of the best we are fake"


The OP talks about how the poetry is bad around here, and gives examples of "good poetry", and yet funnily enough, the examples he gave I consider "bad poetry".

Go figure.

[Etan Isar]

I think the point was that metaphor can add another layer to a line. I agree that the line in question is a little bit much--at least out of context.

[Awesome McBadass]

I suppose you're right about the point of the post.

[soul-hugger]

Hello..,

Some very good points here...
We question what constitutes poetry, and each person has a different answer. Each and every person would like to think their poetry is good, but on sites like this, there is going to be a lot of variation. I think when we look at a poem individually, the intent becomes very important. There are those poems written with the reader's enjoyment in mind and then there are those written simply for the purpose of expression. Although it can certainly be said that there are unoriginal poems, shallow poems, etc., I'm not sure anyone can call it "bad" unless it was meant to be. I think it would also be great to talk about what makes a poem good and how we can generate ideas. There must be a way to take ordinary thoughts or ideas and turn them into poetry.

With this discussion on the table, IMO it has become clear that it is more difficult than it sounds to define when grammar is necessary and when it is not. I am all for experimentation, whether it is with grammar or with other things, yet I do think there needs to be "rules". For example, most of the best types of music were at one time considered experimental. If someone had not had open ears and an open mind, we might not be enjoying the variety of music that is available to us today. I think "genre" is less important than quality. Even though there may be a difference in opinion, if something is indeed excellent, it can at least be respected if not enjoyed. But there is also a difference between the average and that which is truly great. Most of us will never be Shakespeares, but at least we can try! I agree with whoever it was who said (forgive me for not quoting it) that you need to know the rules of grammar in order to break them. I think this is an excellent point. It would benefit anyone who writes to learn as much as he/she can about the more mundane or technical aspects of writing; spelling, punctuation, grammar, syntax, structure, etc. Knowledge is power.

Although we may not always follow the rules, we must not forget the reason they were made in the first place. Some of the rules were made in order to regulate the things we are talking about right now. If everyone follows the same rules, it becomes much easier to see where a mistake has been made. I once got slammed on a poetry site for not capitalizing the beginning letters of each line. Some people simply did not understand why I had done this. This would be an example of a difference of opinion. Then, there are poems I have read where the punctuation and spelling are so atrocious that I could not enjoy the piece for what it could have been. Sometimes this is not even because the person cannot spell so much as because they did not take the time to correct their work. If it is a genuine mistake, we are here to help eachother and to comment on each poem individually. If you are a person who does your homework and has a solid technical base, it can be easy to come down on those who do not. I see these times as opportunities to help someone who is genuinely seeking the opinions of others. I think it is great that we can defy the laws of geography and come together with a common interest. So let's be kind to eachother..., we all have something to learn here!

soul-hugger

[Gannon]

you need to know the rules of grammar in order to break them Amen. But I'd add "effectively" to the end of this very strong point.

[digitig]

Ok, I suppose I might as well wade in.

One problem with trying to define poetry is that there are no sharp boundaries. Some prose writers are particularly poetic, and some poets have written "prose poems". The genres blur into one another.

I would suggest that what makes something poetic (rather than necessarily poetry) is that words stand for more than their meanings. Some prose is very "dry" and literal, and this suits some styles and authors. But as soon as you start to worry about the sound of the words, the rhythms, the connotations, layers of meanings and so on then you are introducing poetic elements. If you ever find yourself at the point where you can't get at the real meaning of a piece of writing without taking those into account -- well, I can't tell you where you crossed the border, but you've crossed it and you're in poetry country now.

When I was doing lots close readings of poems for university assignments and exams, I kept a mental checklist of things to watch out for, working from the finest level to the broadest level. I can't remember the whole list now, but I started at the sounds -- alliteration, assonance, rhyme and so on. Then I looked at words: what sort of words are used (simple, short words? Long unusual words? Foreign sounding words?) Then on to phrases, looking for metaphors, then line breaks and sentence structures, structures within stanzas, structures across stanzas.

A key think in poetry (and a lot of other writing too) is "foregrounding". What elements are particularly brought to the reader's attention (by rhyme, alliteration, being the first or last word in the line, being repeated) and do the foregrounded elements reinforce or work against the plain meaning? Or are they irrelevant to it? That's a big part of the difference between great rhymed verse and doggerel, by the way. In Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade" we have "blundered", "thundered", "wonder'd" reinforcing the description of the military disaster. Compare with William McGonigal's "The Tay Bridge Disaster" or the average Hallmark card and there is no unifying significance to the rhyming words.

Poetic effects are not necessarily foregrounded, though. They can interact with the meaning in subtle ways. In Betjeman's "Summoned By Bells" there's a passage in which the tranquility of the English countryside is disturbed by the arrival of an early motor car. It took me a while to realise why this relaxed, easy reading piece was so effective. Then I realised that while all was tranquil, almost all of the consonants were soft -- m's and s's mimicing the buzzing of bees and chirp of crickets. When the car appears, there are suddenly lots of p's and k's, mimicking the noise of the engine and the cars mechanisms. You could read the passage countless times without noticing that -- I did! All you notice is that the passage is very evocative, without realising why. I don't know whether Betjeman did that consciously or whether it was simply the result of a very skilled "ear", but it's there, and in my opinion it's the sort of thing that lifts it from verse to poetry. You can't do that without writing a lot -- and you can't do it without reading even more. I'll say that again: I don't believe you can write poetry that it will be worth anybody else's time reading without reading -- critically reading -- a vast amount of good poetry yourself.

For me the various poetic devices are tools. You don't have to use any particular tool for a particular job: you don't have to rhyme, or have a metrical structure or a particular stanza structure or whatever. But if you get familiar with them then you will learn instinctively which one to reach for in a given situation, and your writing will be lifted from mere "prose with the line breaks in odd places" to something that engages the readers and draws them in. Will it be poetry? Who cares? it will be good writing.

[Gannon]

A lot of very sound points here digitig.


I would suggest that what makes something poetic (rather than necessarily poetry) is that words stand for more than their meanings.

What you are describing here is the difference between semantics and pragmatics. I find this a very valuable tool in poetry and prose. The difference between the literal and the inferred can speak volumes, especially if you have the ability to blur the two and/or play the literal against the inferred.


In Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade" we have "blundered", "thundered", "wonder'd" reinforcing the description of the military disaster. Compare with ... the average Hallmark card and there is no unifying significance to the rhyming words.

Very valid. What is the point of rhyme if it is purely a poetic check? A rhyme scheme is a valid poetic device, but assigning one which has no purpose is often pointless. Your example is a good one. The repetition of that sound is structurally strong, echoing the booms of cannon fire and providing robust symmetry of image in the poem.


In Betjeman's "Summoned By Bells" there's a passage in which the tranquility of the English countryside is disturbed by the arrival of an early motor car. It took me a while to realise why this relaxed, easy reading piece was so effective. Then I realised that while all was tranquil, almost all of the consonants were soft -- m's and s's mimicing the buzzing of bees and chirp of crickets. When the car appears, there are suddenly lots of p's and k's, mimicking the noise of the engine and the cars mechanisms. You could read the passage countless times without noticing that -- I did! All you notice is that the passage is very evocative, without realising why. I don't know whether Betjeman did that consciously or whether it was simply the result of a very skilled "ear", but it's there, and in my opinion it's the sort of thing that lifts it from verse to poetry.

You betcha Betjeman though about this when he was writing. This level of attention to detail, building layers of device onto others amounts to poetic weight. When reading a piece, I look for candidates for exlcusion as I believe if even a single syllable carries no or little weight in poetry it is a candidate for omission. If it has no weight, why is it there? Weight is achieved in various ways and Betjeman's example is a great one. Above the well-worked rhythm and evocative language we have the soporific effect of all those nasal sounds (/m/, /n/) and fricatives ([sh], and the soft [th]). These are interrupted crudely and intentionally by the motorcar and accompanying cavalcade of plosives (/k/, /g/, /t/, /d/). This is actually quite a common trick. Why? Because it's effective and unobtrusive.


You don't have to use any particular tool for a particular job: you don't have to rhyme, or have a metrical structure or a particular stanza structure or whatever. But if you get familiar with them then you will learn instinctively which one to reach for in a given situation, and your writing will be lifted from mere "prose with the line breaks in odd places" to something that engages the readers and draws them in.

Amen once more. Indeed the aspiring poet need not conform with any device or expectation, but as you say, the more familiar one is with these things the more easily natural placement of them will become. Conversely, keeping in mind that a poet need not employ any standard, he is likely to only best reject the more common ones if he/she knows what will be achieved by doing so. The old adage holds true: to best break the rules it pays to know them well.

Your final point about lifting a work from "prose with the line breaks in odd places" is also a very important one to me. Line breaks are again a device, one that has a power above the arbitrary and aesthetic. As you rightly hint, haphazard or arbitrary linebreaks, or those assigned thoughtlessly purely to achieve a poetic feel, rarely live up their potential. A line break placed with skill can control rhythm, control the reader and his interpretation through controlling his breathing, add silent beats to metre, introduce suspense and/or subversion, and for the really adventurous add aesthetic weight. In one piece I read, which sadly I forget now, the line and stanza breaks literally fenced in their subjects on the page, allowing that poem about subjugation to take on even greater meaning.

[digitig]

Weight is achieved in various ways and Betjeman's example is a great one. Above the well-worked rhythm and evocative language we have the soporific effect of all those nasal sounds (/m/, /n/) and fricatives ([sh], and the soft [th]). These are interrupted crudely and intentionally by the motorcar and accompanying cavalcade of plosives (/k/, /g/, /t/, /d/). This is actually quite a common trick. Why? Because it's effective and unobtrusive.
I think that every time I was given a poem for close reading at university, I found interesting connections between the sound of the words and the meaning of the poem. I hesitate to make that a rule of poetry (it could just as well be a reflection of what I or the university was expecting), but I really would advise aspiring poets to consider the sound of their poem, not just the meaning! Probably not a bad idea for all writers, I suppose.

[Etan Isar]

I think that every time I was given a poem for close reading at university, I found interesting connections between the sound of the words and the meaning of the poem. I hesitate to make that a rule of poetry (it could just as well be a reflection of what I or the university was expecting), but I really would advise aspiring poets to consider the sound of their poem, not just the meaning! Probably not a bad idea for all writers, I suppose.


-sonance is king. I've expriemented with structuring poems almost entirely around assonance, consonance and alliteration. Tough, but fun. :D

[Cogito]

I've moved this thread to the Writing Issues area. It really makes more sense to have this under General Writing than in the Review Room. There has been some really good input here about the nature of poetry

Also, it removes te temptation for new members to post in this thread to try to get revviewing credits (yeah, it has happened on occasion).

The reason I haven't moved it before is that there is relevance to critiquing here. Although the argument can be made, and as been made, that there are no hard and fast rules to poetry, without some framework it is impossible to critique poetry.

If there are no elements that define poetry, then
iudo idyur xxx uyfdis a poem, and so is
grenade sunlight lingerieIn fact, both of these are garbage generated at random. The first, random groupings of letters, the second, randomly chosen words.

There is little risk that anyone would claim the first as a legitimate poem, and yet someone might try to argue that the second is. I reject both.

So what really are the essential elements of poetry?

I'm not sure there is any one criterion that by itself is required. But I do believe that there must be at least one poetic element to define a piece of writing as a poem.

Possible candidate criteria are:
Rhyme (or other tonal devices)
Rhythm
Imagery
Structure (the arrangement of the words other than sequence or sentencial form).

Structure implies that the placement of line and verse breaks carries significance of its own. The acid test is that if you string the words end to end with only a uniform spacing to separate them, you alter or weaken the poem.

Many modern poems eschew traditional rhyme. Still, similar mechanisms like alliteration and consonance, or internal rhymes, still add a great deal to poetry. They add emphasis, and they add interest. They bind words or phrases together to link the corresponding meanings. Repetition serves a similar purpose, and can be included in this category.

Imagery can be as simple as a word choice that vividly paints an image in the reader's mind, like refering to fog as smoky, or it can be an extended metaphor running throughout the poem to equate a simple scene to the human condition. I personally place a high value on the role of strong imagery in poetry.

So these are key elements of poetry. They need not all be present, but I propose that at least one must be present in some degree. However, if someone sees another element, distinct from thes four, that can make a poem in the absence of these four, perhaps the list of elements can be extended.

[digitig]

Possible candidate criteria are:
Rhyme (or other tonal devices)
Rhythm
Imagery
Structure (the arrangement of the words other than sequence or sentencial form).

You've mentioned "significance" in relation to structure, but I'm guessing that you regard it as relevant to the others. I certainly do -- I think that the lack of significance in the rhythm and the rhyme is significant in distinguishing doggerel from poetry.

The linguist Ronald Carter has identified a number of features of texts which he considers makes them "literary", and I think a lot of them move a text along the scale from prose towards poetry:

Semantic Density: different linguistic levels working together to give an overall effect;
Polysemy: openness to different interpretations;
Independence from other media;
Genre mixing;
Displaced interaction: doesn't directly invite the reader to take specific actions such as buy a product; and
Text patterning.


So I see your "text patterning" and raise you "semantic density" :D

[arron89]

The only definition that can encompass all poetry, regardless of personal tastes as far as thing like rhyme and rhythm go, is that with poetry, the poet controls where the line begins and ends. The obvious implication here is that structure is the defining aspect of a poem, and I think that's something I'd agree with, given that it's literally the only thing that distinguishes poetry from prose.

Obviously "poetic" has come to have very specific connotations, but as a descriptor of contemporary poetry it is woefully out of date.

[digitig]

The only definition that can encompass all poetry, regardless of personal tastes as far as thing like rhyme and rhythm go, is that with poetry, the poet controls where the line begins and ends.
Hmm. On the basis that in prose poems the writer has control but has chosen not to exercise that control?

[arron89]

There's a lot of debate about whether prose poetry actually counts as poetry, by both critics and writers. It depends on how you define poetry, but since most people's definition includes references to content, and therefore aren't universal, prose poetry is often included at the expense of weakening the strength of the definition.

Even poets like Sherwood Anderson, one of the most well-known writers of prose poetry, calls his work flash fiction. Most prose poetry draws equally on poetry and narrative prose, so its certainly a grey area. For instance, they may be instinctively classed as poetry because of the type of imagery or the rhythm, but draw on narrative conventions from long-form prose.

[Etan Isar]

I’ve never understood why we have to mush things into the categories of “prose” and “poetry”. It seems to me that a lot of so-called “prose poetry” really belongs in its own category.

[digitig]

I’ve never understood why we have to mush things into the categories of “prose” and “poetry”. It seems to me that a lot of so-called “prose poetry” really belongs in its own category.

That's a normal problem with categories, though. "Black" and "white" are useful categories even if there are difficulties defining where they fade into grey.

[Etan Isar]

That's a normal problem with categories, though. "Black" and "white" are useful categories even if there are difficulties defining where they fade into grey.


Well, the one thing I never had an issue with in Dragonlance was sticking a "red" between the black and the white.

[Zane]

Hello! Recently, poetry catched my attention, and i´m considering on starting to write it often.

I´ve only written like 3 or 4 poems for school, and I just write randoom thoughts and mix them together. Sometimes it works. Sometimes doesn´t.

I´d like to know from experienced poetry writers, how do you usually start writing a poem.

For example, yesterday I was on the beach and entered a chineese store and I saw there a pretty girl. If I wanted to write a poem about her, which elements should the poem possess? Which features should a poem usually include?

[mammamaia]

I´d like to know from experienced poetry writers, how do you usually start writing a poem.

...i'm a full time poet and i start by simply writing whatever words come to me...
sometimes it will be a line that just popped into my head unbidden and sometimes thinking about a subject that niggles at my brain will generate a good first line and i take it from there...


For example, yesterday I was on the beach and entered a chineese store and I saw there a pretty girl. If I wanted to write a poem about her, which elements should the poem possess? Which features should a poem usually include?

...there are no specific 'should's... it should merely possess/include whatever you want it to...

...take your pretty girl, for instance... here are several starts that might suggest themselves to me, as i consider what i want to write about her:

rhymed:

the jewelry counter's most tempting wares
were outdone by the answer to his prayers

blank verse:

she leaned lazily against the counter
stopped him in his tracks

or

hair of india ink
eyes of china
the world in a smile

...i mentor many aspiring poets, so if you want help learning the art, just drop me a line any time...

love and hugs, maia
maia3maia@hotmail.com

[author97]

This is a good guide for aspiring poets told by schools how and what to write. Poerty is everywhere. Poetry is life.

[MeSophie]

I don't have time to read this now, but thank you so much for posting this. (: I'm entering a competition and I'm sure this'll be INCREDIBLY useful <3

[Gracia Bee]

Goshy, these thing make a HUGE-MONGUS difference. I love it :)

[story_teller]

I've taken it upon myself to write a brief guide on poetry. Browsing the forums I see alot of the same problems arising in each and everyone of people's poems, and alot of unoriginallity. Whether this is a consequence of similar influence, or plain and simple unoriginallity, I don't really know. But it's not the point. The point is, that the standard of poetry here is not that high, no matter what people think.

So. Three of the main thing's I see that people lack in their poetry is this:
1. Metaphor
2. Originallity
3. Grammar

Now, for the remedies.

Metaphor



In short, metaphor is an effective method of taking one object and either glorifing it, destroying it, comparing it etc. Shorter again, it's making an object/feeling/emotion more interesting. In poetry, this is very important. Metaphor is also closely linked with personification in poetry. Say you want to write a poem about a 'broken heart'. Bang, you've already got a metaphor of sorts, how can a heart be broken? It's metaphorical. That's where number two comes in - originallity. How many songs do you know about broken hearts? Everyone from angsty pre-teens to seasoned country-western music vert's have been writing them for years. The difference between the good and the bad? Originallity. The road to originallity? Metaphor(this term also includes the afore mentioned personification and simile).

Here's an example:

Green tree leaves bang on my tin roof, noisily.

That's an uninteresting version of what tree's do in the wind. However, if one uses metaphor too completely change the tree:

Arrows from the bows of nature's silent warriors pound the tin roof, noisily

Pretty epic. That's just my style of writing - you may have something different. The point is, the second is vastly more intersting than the first.

Now, the third section. Grammar. Grammar is a vital part of all writing, though it's often neglected in poetry. One of the things you DO NOT need to in poetry, is put a comma at the end of each line. That's a very old-school thing to do, but still taught in most schools. Very un neccessary. Grammar also assists with other two sections of this guide. If your writing sentences like you would in prose, and putting it into poetry, it's obviously not going to sound good. The reason? The use of grammar is different between the two. Grammar also helps to double up meanings and add depth, if used well. Line breaks also assist with this, and I often group these two things in the same catergory. Observe:

"We are the best of the best we are fake"

That's a line from my most recent piece(Curtain Calls - Stage: Perdition, checkit!). Now, if I'd actually put that into my piece, it'd be a major flaw - it's only one line, but it's lacking flow, and is on the whole uninteresting. If we add some grammar into this, what happens?

"We are the best of the best;
We are fake."

You get a far more intersting two lines. The colon at the end adds suspense to the next line, anticipation. A lead-up. And all it took was one little piece of grammar. The line break also exaggerates this, and the punch line of that particular part is delivered with finallity with a full stop at the end.




Ok. So more or less, after those three major thing's Ive mentioned, you'll be set for good, original poems. It'll take practice. Everything takes practice. It's taken me a year too get where I am now. But if you practice implementing these devices, you'll get there.

Look out for Part II: Critique[/i]

First of all I hope you don't mind, I have copied and pasted this into a word doc to keep as yet another handy reference. I like your advise and if possible can I share some poems with you, I've been diagnosed with ADS and have a tendency to rush what I'm writing to keep up with what's in my head, then struggle editing because I read What I know in my head and not what I actually wrote, my grammar and spelling then is very weak and people think I'm a sometimes talented and very passionate teenager...I'm almost 30....

If you have the time and patience, it would be a massive help. If not thank you very much for the guideline above, I'm going to use it now.

[Ziggy Stardust]

There's a lot of debate about whether prose poetry actually counts as poetry, by both critics and writers. It depends on how you define poetry, but since most people's definition includes references to content, and therefore aren't universal, prose poetry is often included at the expense of weakening the strength of the definition.

Even poets like Sherwood Anderson, one of the most well-known writers of prose poetry, calls his work flash fiction. Most prose poetry draws equally on poetry and narrative prose, so its certainly a grey area. For instance, they may be instinctively classed as poetry because of the type of imagery or the rhythm, but draw on narrative conventions from long-form prose.

What exactly is "prose poetry"? Is it just a short story that sounds poetic? A poem that doesn't rhyme? Are Shakespeare's plays "prose poetry"?

[arron89]

Prose poetry is just poetry written without line breaks; the only universally applicable (formal) definition of poetry is that the poet can control where the line ends (as you probably read above), and in prose poetry, the poet chooses to emulate the formal character of prose while writing what they consider (and want readers to consider) poetry. Shakespearean plays are plays, and though they contain poems and poetic qualities, they are not prose poems.

[mammamaia]

well said, arron!

[tprice93]

Hey, I have some poetry along with a short story on my blog. Check it out and let me know what you think or what I could possibly do to improve my writing.

http://whatsthepricebrotherlyblog.blogspot.com/

[Agatha Christie]

thank you very much for that guide....has helped clarify things a lot