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]
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.
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 Could you phrase that simpler? Big words frighten me silly.
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.
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.
Thank you! I really wish schools taught poetry in a more interesting, less rigid way. Kudos. I look forward to the next installment.
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'...
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 ; 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.
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'...
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).
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.
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?
