Forgive me if discussions about poetry are not allowed in here (I suspect this place is only for submissions) but Jim Jarmusch's latest film Paterson has sparked my interest in the art. What I struggle to get my head around, is why a sentence in a poem is so often broken by giving part of it its own line. What is the purpose of this? Is it a way to force the reader to read it in a particular rhythm, or is it deeper than that? Take this glorious poem from William Carlos Williams titled This is Just to Say It's a gorgeous piece of writing (man that sounds pretentious) and I ask myself would I have enjoyed it as much if the sentences had been written as wholes. But I still wonder why the sentences are broken like this? Why are we forced to so unnaturally break a sentence in this way?
Hello Ourjud, While I can't speak for WCW, I can take a guess by asking myself, 'What effect does breaking sentences like this have?" First, let us look at the subject matter of this poem. The speaker is asking for forgiveness after eating someone else's plums. People often hesitate when they have to tell other people bad news; with that in mind (hesitation) this poem takes on a whole new voice. The speaker clearly doesn't want to reveal the fact he or she has eaten the plums and stops (hesitates) before continuing to speak. Second, look at each word that ends a line. You can almost get everything you need to know about what is going on by just reading the last word of each line. These words are important and the stop (created by the line break) forces us to dwell on them for just a moment longer before moving onto the next line. I am sure there are other reasons but these the two I have that come to mind.
Thank you, OJB. Your reasoning - whether it was WCW's intention or not - sounds logical. I did read an analysis elsewhere, which while not explicitly explaining the reason for the structure, did end by stating that perhaps it doesn't matter and that we shouldn't even be trying to analyse it. Just read it, accept the way it makes you feel (good, bad, indifferent) and leave it at that. If you're interested, that analysis was here: eatthispoem
This should help- The term for the continuation without punctuation is Enjambment. This is what Wikipedia has on it- "In poetry, enjambment (/ɛnˈdʒæmbmənt/; from the French enjambement)[1] is incomplete syntax at the end of a line;[2] the meaning runs over from one poetic line to the next, without terminal punctuation. Lines without enjambment are end-stopped. In reading, the delay of meaning creates a tension that is released when the word or phrase that completes the syntax is encountered (called the rejet);[1] the tension arises from the "mixed message" produced both by the pause of the line-end, and the suggestion to continue provided by the incomplete meaning.[3] In spite of the apparent contradiction between rhyme, which heightens closure, and enjambment, which delays it, the technique is compatible with rhymed verse.[3] Even in couplets, the closed or heroic couplet was a late development; older is the open couplet, where rhyme and enjambed lines co-exist.[3] Enjambment has a long history in poetry. Homer used the technique, and it is the norm for alliterative verse where rhyme is unknown.[3] In the 32nd Psalm of the Hebrew Bible enjambment is unusually conspicuous.[4] It was used extensively in England by Elizabethan poets for dramatic and narrative verse, before giving way to closed couplets. The example of John Milton in Paradise Lost laid the foundation for its subsequent use by the English Romantic poets; in its preface he identified it as one of the chief features of his verse: "sense variously drawn out from one verse into another".[3]"
Brilliant, Arcadeus! Thank you for hunting that down. From this and @OJB's explanation I feel my understanding of the technique has increased ten-fold. It's so nice when an explanation for something you expected to be very complex, gels so well in the brain. What they say about the tension from the pause, and the resulting heightened closure when the sentence is completed, is exactly how I feel reading poems written like that. It also backs up @OJB take on the technique. And what's more, in my recently posted effort, I think I must have subconsciously known this because of the way I've structured the sentences.
No problem. The only reason I knew is because in some of my free time, I read and study different poetry tools in order to widen my toolbox.
I'm personally reluctant to get too academic when it comes to the arts, chiefly because I'm lazy, but also because I think one can become shackled if they think there are 'correct' ways of doing things.
A toolbox is simply a set of tools one CAN choose to use. It's not a "must use" type of studying. It's similar to studying different tropes and incorporating them into your novel, short story. There are things we naturally add: Chain Verse, Rhyme, Repitition, etc. There are also things that most have to practice and consciously add if they want to improve their range of skill: Scansion is probably the best example of this for me personally. Scansion is the measure of the stressed and unstressed syllables in a line of poetry. Even the things we do naturally can be improved upon by reading and understanding how they work. None of it states that you have to do this. The only time you really don't have as much bending room is if you are following a specific style. By learning the different tools available to you, the amount of flexibility you have in your poetry will actually increase.
Very true. I guess there's no justifying the whole lazy thing then Your last paragraph kind of answers the next question I had, but I'll ask anyway. It seems these days anyone can call themselves an artist (I do therefore I am) which is great for people like me who can't be arsed learning their craft. So I ask, can I just scribble down any kind of nonsense and call it poetry? I know this sounds flippant, but it's not meant literally - I'm simply illustrating my point. Of course I wouldn't even be trying my hand at poetry if I didn't hope to produce something of merit, or at least pleasant on the brain, but when is proposed poetry not poetry?
How to describe this... Yes. Essentially if it's written with some component of poetry, the easiest identifier being stanzas, but not 100% of the time the case. However... saying something is poetry, or a short story, or a novel, does not mean it is good. Writing takes experience. Experience and the willingness to learn from your mistakes/failures.
No, but then I'd say that was a given. But it does make it so, and I think it is only within the arts one can get away with this.
I would say that's kind-of how life is in a lot of ways. Someone can come take care of my lawn perfect, while another can tear away patches of grass due to carelessness. Both are a form of landscaping... one is just a lot prettier. If it is an action, like writing a poem, it is or isn't. There is no I call it a poem so it's a poem when it's a flash fiction with no stanza, rhythm, meter, or rhyme. There must be some component to identify it as a poem. Or... you will have to be very convincing. I can't dig a hole and poop in it and call it poetry. Or at least no-one else would ever recognize it as such. Maybe art... but not poetry. lol Does _____ complete the purpose to be called a _____. If so... it is a ______.
But this could be as simple as someone saying, "Here's my poem:" And the other person replies, "But that's not a poem." So the first guy goes away, then comes back and says, "Well it's a poem now." Is it a poem now?
Having the sentence separated by a line creates a pause, giving a rhythm to the writing that wasn't there before.
Good discussion. And please don't think I'm trying to be clever here by catching you out. It interests me, genuinely.
No worries. I had to stop and think about it for a bit before I figured out how to answer. It's an uncommon question. If someone says "This is my poem," and you feel like it's not a poem, ask them why they consider it a poem. If they can convince you, may as well call it a poem. That makes 2 people to convince the next person. lol
Okay, So I wanted to comment a bit on Enjambment as it has been brought up. Enjambment is a poetic tool used to enhance a poem; using it on a piece of writing does not magically change something from prose to poetry (hence why a valid critique is 'This is just prose but with line breaks.") If you do not have something to enhance it with (Such as a poetic image or sounds) you can you can as much Enjambment as you want, but it doesn't make the piece of writing poetry. With that said, let me go a bit further into depth on this poem. At its heart, this a very simple image poem that reveals something about the speaker (revealing is one of three things that can make an image poetic. The other two is projecting and symbolism.) So the images that are used are: Eaten, Plum, Breakfast, icebox, sweet, and cold. But what does this reveal about the speaker? To gain that answer you need to look at the poem as a whole. The first Stanza: The speaker reveals that he has eaten the plums. (This, in essence, is telling us what the 'crime' was.) The Second Stanza: The speaker reveals why this was a bad thing. 'You were probably saving them for breakfast.' The Third Stanza (and this is the one that brings depth to this poem): The speaker ask for forgiveness, but in the line immediately following he justifies his actions by stating they were delicious, sweet and cold. This Juxtaposition (Asking for forgiveness but justifying his or her action) brings this poem to an end with a bit of a humorous tone, and yet it reveals something about human nature. Often people both feel bad for the things they do but often they try to somehow justify their actions (even if they know they are wrong) and it is in that theme that makes this poem so touching. Again, I don't know for certain what WCW was thinking about when he wrote this poem, but the above is what I get out of it.
So a line of poetry is called a Stanza? Yes? Check! Your breakdown is interesting, as is one of the comments on the website I linked to, in which the poster points out the passive aggressive nature of the note/poem. It is, when all said and done, a very gloating confession. First he admits to having eaten the plums, then acknowledges he knew full well his wife intended to have them for herself, and then has the gall to tell her how nice they were. If I'd been on the receiving end of that note I'd have been cursing him for hours. ETA: No, a Stanza is one of the divisions of a poem, composed of two or more lines usually characterized by a common pattern of meter, rhyme, and number of lines.
No. It is like a paragraph. Also, Yes I can read this as a gloating confession (that was the other idea I had, but either interpretation is valid imo.) The point I am trying to make is that there are many layers to this simple poem. The images, the subtext, and the enjambment all work together. WCW is famous for a reason, and studying his works is a great way to learn the foundations of poetry.
I feel the need to share this amusing little incident. Just a few seconds ago I decided to thumb through some of my old notebooks looking for any poems I may have written. It didn't take me long to find one and I began reading. A couple of stanzas in I was cringing at how terrible it was, and then I got to the end and noticed the credit... I'd simply written down one of Lord Byron's
I want to understand what is so good about Williams poem above? I read it and thought, that is a nice observation. Your "Big toe" does pretty much the same thing. I don't think it is bad, just don't understand the fuss? It is hardly Keats. I refuse tp believe good poetry is purely subjective. I can understand differences in taste, but if a poem is good shouldn't the majority of us come to recognise it as a great poem. I call Keats great. I have faber book of beasts, a selection of poems about animals. Honestly I think 80% of the poems are not worth a second glance. Does anyone else find this? Is it simply that I don't understand poetry?
I will agree that it's not actually that good from my perspective. There's deeper meaning in the lyrics to Unforgiven. This is my personal belief, not looking for an argument. However... there is beauty in simplicity. I'd say, the worth of poems such as This is Just to Say by William Carlos Williams is in not overanalyzing it. It's simple and complete as it is, without commentary about what he meant. Because the feelings he meant are already easily conveyed.
You ask a very good question, and it's not one I can answer. And when I say that, I mean I'm in no position to judge whether or not it's 'officially' a good poem. I hasten to add I know you're not suggesting you are. Williams may well be laughing his arse off from the Other Side, that such a fuss is made over this - which some maintain was simply a note he left his wife, which then somehow got labelled a poem by someone and banded about as such. I think the fact he was a poet meant this simple note took on a certain beauty as he wrote it, but I think whether or not it even is a poem is something people still debate.
