The Guide; Part I: General Poetry Writing

Sry, wrong thread.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.theotherpages.org/poems/index.html

PoetryConnection.net :: Your Connection to Great Poetry

love and hugs, maia
maia3maia@hotmail.com

 

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

 

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

 

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!

 

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

Thanks again, mammamaia!

 

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?

 

I don't know if you'd want to make this post a sticky or not but...

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!!

 

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!!!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

What ?

One word describes this, pretentious.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

And get those similes and metaphors going!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.