the different types of poetry..

i would think perhaps that some of the ww1 british war poets might be a good place to start, as their style serves as something of a backdrop to that era in the literary imagination.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1914warpoets.html

bexcreativedreamer said:

I'm not sure what type of poetry would be most effective.

Click to expand...

bexcreativedreamer, I want to be gentle but also forthright. I've written and performed my own poetry for a great many years, so my opinon on your question is very firm.

Poetry arises from the inner person, which is to say upwards from the heart through the brain, then out the hands. There is no other way to write good poetry.*

Regarding copying one style or another, it would take many years of study and practice to write a successful poem in a particular style - whatever that style might be. Shoehorning one's heart and mind into an existing form is one of the most difficult jobs in literature.

Ergo, take that particular idea and shelve it. Instead, become your own poet.

She looked at the world outside herself,
wond'ring what to write. "Ah-ha," she said,
"Gallipoli!" (Reflecting her own pain.)

Nobody makes a poem but the poetess herself.
Nobody takes a subject not her own.

* * *

So I would say enter the contest, to be sure, but don't copy anyone or anything.

Instead, use whatever research materials you may have to bring yourself to Gallipoli: immerse yourself in the battle. Assume a character or be yourself, no matter. Get inside the mind of someone who died. Stay inside that mind 'til your body can no longer take it: then write.

THINGS TO WATCH OUT FOR

- Singsong.
- End rhymes.
- Copying other people or forms.
- Writing what you think you should
- instead of what you are.

WHAT TO DO WHEN FINISHED

Take your completed poem and write it out a another time as prose. Look for errors of diction, punctuation and meaning (verb agreement, etc.) - and correct them. Then type the poem again the way you see it for yourself on the page.

*Should it become possible to think good poetry, I'd like to be the first!

or just, you know, refer to other styles as touchstones, examine how they might act as proper vehicles for your chosen subject matter and tone, and pick and choose the elements that appeal to you in support of what appears to be a one-time (or, at least, rare) foray into poetry.

Lance Rocks said:

Regarding copying one style or another, it would take many years of study and practice to write a successful poem in a particular style - whatever that style might be.

Click to expand...

I am all for the benefit of study and practice - of existing forms and styles, principles, history, and any aspects of poetry (or any writing).

How one defines success is a separate question, and one which I think merits consideration.

Lance Rocks said:

Shoehorning one's heart and mind into an existing form is one of the most difficult jobs in literature.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is the case for everyone, but I don't disagree per se.

For me, though, writing according to a form isn't an exercise in shoehorning; it's a springboard, a framework, an inspiration. It's not always the approach I choose, but I find it to be a help rather than a constraint.

Not all people feel that way, but I'm very much against casting aside existing forms on principle. Forms and other devices are tools, not rules; they're there to be used if they suit the purpose. eta: What's more, if no existing form suits, poetry invites the poet to invent new forms; there's no moratorium.

I recall reading something about the differences between Petrarchan, Spenserian, and Shakespearian sonnets, and the sort of reflection or theme (and language) they lent themselves best to. If I can recall where it is, I'll add the link here. But there's an example of adapting forms to suit.

I would find the purposeful avoidance of forms and devices (such as rhyme or meter) to be as restrictive as insistent adherence to them. eta again: I agree, though, that clumsy or inapt use of rhyme and meter can sink a poem in a rather ugly manner, just the same as unfiltered word dumps fall with a splat.

Surely, rhyme and strict meter are not necessary for a poem to contain the lyrical quality that sets poetry apart from prose. But a poet should be able to say what it is about their work that makes it a poem and not simply prose. If he can't say what makes it a poem, how does he even know he's written one?

More broadly, if one doesn't know what one wants to achieve in a poem that couldn't be done in prose, why is one writing (or claiming to write) a poem at all? Why do poems exist?

Poems vary as widely as 'books' or 'songs'; catch-all definitions become less useful as they become more inclusive. But - and I know I've digressed here - it's still worth asking oneself: "Why do I want to make this work as a poem? And what gives it poem-ness?"