What happened to poetic form?

Probably more comfortable than bratwurst

William Haskins said:

rhyme is lovely to the mind and ear. i try to use it in unconventional ways because i find it is often even more delicious as a surprise.

i am not interested in compulsory rhyme placement so i can check a box to fulfill some bullshit criteria to make it "a poem."

Click to expand...

William, forgive me if this was not in reply to my question on 'structure'. If it was, I completely agree with you, and further, did not intend the word 'recur' to be limited to rhyme. My thought was more the whole question of what constitutes 'structure' in a free verse poem, as I have a, perhaps misguided, belief that a poem should have some kind of structure (not saying traditional/formal) to call itself a poem. Further, structure seems to imply that 'something' (beyond line breaks and words and punctuation) be 'recurring'? Exactly what that becomes within the poem, i.e., rhyme (any kind), meter, assonance, refrain, or any device... is the creative choice of the poet, but its presence distinguishes a poem from other collections of words. It could be some completely fresh and creative scheme or device designed around the content/specifically for the content/by the content, yet without some kind of structure, it would be hard to perceive it as a poem.

Poetry requires careful words, and that they be hung together purposely, and then... whatever 'recurs', either rudely or gently, raises its hand to say, "i'm a poem".

If you weren't responding to my post, thanks for letting me use you to yammer on. I really would like to hear other thoughts on what constitutes structure in a poem (free verse) and if it is indeed considered necessary, intentional, or simply an unintended consequence of the words chosen and their arrangement.

Jeff, I saw you posted the same question earlier, directed toward me. I'll respond in full tomorrow when I have more time.

William Haskins said:

i just laughed crawfish out my nose.

Click to expand...

Stew21 said:

Probably more comfortable than bratwurst

Click to expand...

Poetry.

As it was intended.

Although if I might quibble -- bratwurst are large, yes, and undoubtedly it would be painful to snort a sausage out of one's nose. But crawfish have those nasty shells and claws and such, no? I dunno, I'm thinking they might hurt more.

Perhaps William can try a bratwurst and let us know.

Wow! I had no idea this would be so hot! I always believed that one needs to understand the form and work within it before breaking out of it. I had no idea that bratwurst was involved, but have full respect for all sausages.

Lyrical voice comes from experience in it. it doesn't magically surface in poets who haven't tried it.

C.bronco said:

Wow! I had no idea this would be so hot!

Click to expand...

This thread isn't for the timid, C.b. Grab your smelling salts and a switchblade. You're gonna need 'em.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, told a young poet: "When you write prose you say what you mean. When you write verse you say what you must".


Prose is best suited for explanation, poetry for inspiration.

When poetry explains it borders on prose. When prose inspires it borders on poetry.

William Butler Yeats quoted his father as saying, "What can be explained is not poetry". I doubt they meant as literally as it sounds.


Churchill was not attempting to explain to the English people in the speech posted above. He was attempting to inspire them. So was Lincoln.

kborsden said:

Jeff, I saw you posted the same question earlier, directed toward me. I'll respond in full tomorrow when I have more time.

Click to expand...

You can find my answer here--I thought it best to start a new discussion

Brandt said:

William, forgive me if this was not in reply to my question on 'structure'. If it was, I completely agree with you, and further, did not intend the word 'recur' to be limited to rhyme. My thought was more the whole question of what constitutes 'structure' in a free verse poem, as I have a, perhaps misguided, belief that a poem should have some kind of structure (not saying traditional/formal) to call itself a poem. Further, structure seems to imply that 'something' (beyond line breaks and words and punctuation) be 'recurring'? Exactly what that becomes within the poem, i.e., rhyme (any kind), meter, assonance, refrain, or any device... is the creative choice of the poet, but its presence distinguishes a poem from other collections of words. It could be some completely fresh and creative scheme or device designed around the content/specifically for the content/by the content, yet without some kind of structure, it would be hard to perceive it as a poem.

Poetry requires careful words, and that they be hung together purposely, and then... whatever 'recurs', either rudely or gently, raises its hand to say, "i'm a poem".

If you weren't responding to my post, thanks for letting me use you to yammer on. I really would like to hear other thoughts on what constitutes structure in a poem (free verse) and if it is indeed considered necessary, intentional, or simply an unintended consequence of the words chosen and their arrangement.

Click to expand...

this is a great post. my previous reply wasn't directed at you so much as just leaping into the general fray. at this point, i'm a old guy at a bus stop yelling to anyone who will listen that the government is tracking your internet use through your fillings.

listen, i'm terrible at talking shop about poetry. kie's (and others') posts here and elsewhere have far more value.

the only things i can add of value are:

- beware of anyone who speaks of formal structure as the fundamental basis of poetry, especially when they don't speak about the underlying idea or concept of a poem, as this, to me, is what makes poetry poetry.

- form and formalism are used too interchangeably sometimes. a poem not adhering to canonized structure does not mean a poem is without form.

- poetry is about stirring that inside us which makes us human. form should always (and only) be in service to this.

i'll leave it to critics and academics to parse and reverse-engineer how the sausage is made. i'm not wired for it and barely have the time to write poetry, much less pontificate on it.

i try to write good poems that make people feel something true or weird or honest. to that end, i consider any and every trick in the book, every technique, every theory fair-game tools in my tool box.

sometimes i succeed and other times i fail. that's all i can do.

as a parting shot and in reference back to my first point: without something to say, without an idea or a concept or a contention or an emotion cut to the bone, filling out some pre-determined framework of meter and rhyme and declaring it a poem is like finishing a paint-by-number piece and calling it a painting because you stayed in the lines.

without some new way of seeing the world or saying something, it is a hollow exercise in rote technique.

content is king.

Amen.

ETA: Kie: that thing about the paint by numbers in William's post is what I meant by "crafty writing". Craft empty of what actually makes a poem.

Lovely post William. I could not agree more. Thanks for that.

I hope it looks like that is what i try to do when i write poetry.

Brandt said:

William, forgive me if this was not in reply to my question on 'structure'. If it was, I completely agree with you, and further, did not intend the word 'recur' to be limited to rhyme. My thought was more the whole question of what constitutes 'structure' in a free verse poem, as I have a, perhaps misguided, belief that a poem should have some kind of structure (not saying traditional/formal) to call itself a poem. Further, structure seems to imply that 'something' (beyond line breaks and words and punctuation) be 'recurring'? Exactly what that becomes within the poem, i.e., rhyme (any kind), meter, assonance, refrain, or any device... is the creative choice of the poet, but its presence distinguishes a poem from other collections of words. It could be some completely fresh and creative scheme or device designed around the content/specifically for the content/by the content, yet without some kind of structure, it would be hard to perceive it as a poem.

Poetry requires careful words, and that they be hung together purposely, and then... whatever 'recurs', either rudely or gently, raises its hand to say, "i'm a poem".

If you weren't responding to my post, thanks for letting me use you to yammer on. I really would like to hear other thoughts on what constitutes structure in a poem (free verse) and if it is indeed considered necessary, intentional, or simply an unintended consequence of the words chosen and their arrangement.

Click to expand...

Steppe said:

Oliver Wendell Holmes, told a young poet: "When you write prose you say what you mean. When you write verse you say what you must".


Prose is best suited for explanation, poetry for inspiration.

When poetry explains it borders on prose. When prose inspires it borders on poetry.

William Butler Yeats quoted his father as saying, "What can be explained is not poetry". I doubt they meant as literally as it sounds.


Churchill was not attempting to explain to the English people in the speech posted above. He was attempting to inspire them. So was Lincoln.

Click to expand...

kborsden said:

You can find my answer here--I thought it best to start a new discussion

Click to expand...

William Haskins said:

this is a great post. my previous reply wasn't directed at you so much as just leaping into the general fray. at this point, i'm a old guy at a bus stop yelling to anyone who will listen that the government is tracking your internet use through your fillings.

listen, i'm terrible at talking shop about poetry. kie's (and others') posts here and elsewhere have far more value.

the only things i can add of value are:

- beware of anyone who speaks of formal structure as the fundamental basis of poetry, especially when they don't speak about the underlying idea or concept of a poem, as this, to me, is what makes poetry poetry.

- form and formalism are used too interchangeably sometimes. a poem not adhering to canonized structure does not mean a poem is without form.

- poetry is about stirring that inside us which makes us human. form should always (and only) be in service to this.

i'll leave it to critics and academics to parse and reverse-engineer how the sausage is made. i'm not wired for it and barely have the time to write poetry, much less pontificate on it.

i try to write good poems that make people feel something true or weird or honest. to that end, i consider any and every trick in the book, every technique, every theory fair-game tools in my tool box.

sometimes i succeed and other times i fail. that's all i can do.

as a parting shot and in reference back to my first point: without something to say, without an idea or a concept or a contention or an emotion cut to the bone, filling out some pre-determined framework of meter and rhyme and declaring it a poem is like finishing a paint-by-number piece and calling it a painting because you stayed in the lines.

without some new way of seeing the world or saying something, it is a hollow exercise in rote technique.

content is king.

Click to expand...

Kylabelle said:

Amen.

. . poem.

Click to expand...

And with that, I respectfully request this thread be locked. I've read it twice already and while I could add a bit more (as may all or many reading now) in vague attempts at clarity, it seems the better choice is to simply say "THANKS" for this thread, all the inspired, insipid & sublime posts herein, and hopefully spend a little time this afternoon with my lovely Mag-net, catching poems on the wing!!!

Excellent post, William. Truth.

Sagely said William, every word.

one afterthought, at the risk of being annoyingly self-referential.

thorn forest consists of thirty short poems, none of which share a specific form with another (with the exception of one sort of stylistic reprise).

nevertheless, all of them have some level of form and, beyond that, work together not only to advance an overarching narrative, but also seek to capture an ongoing ebb and flow of mood and intensity.

in this pursuit, it only makes sense to employ a variety of rhyme schemes, metrical features and other devices. again, in service to the content.

not sure this really adds to the conversation, but thought i'd throw it out there.

It does. The individuality of each poem part was essential to Thorn Forest in terms of the progression of the story and the development of characters and voices.
Variety was essential, too, for conveying emotional and thematic changes.
I doubt Thorn Forest would have had the same feel if each poem had been sonnet; it would have done a disservice to the whole poem.
They were distinct, clearly structured, individually self-contained and still undeniably part of the larger work.

The result is more symphonic than a "collection" of works.
The use of structure is key to that i believe.

Great example

Your repitition throughout of earth water, animal, etc behaved as glue for you too.

I agree. I think Thorn Forest is a great example of structure in free verse, although I might sheepishly call one or two parts more traditional form. I remember one part, in particular, where someone was asking Jacob about his 'Mama', written in couplets I believe, that seemed more formal in its structure. But every poem had its own necessary structure that functioned both for the immediate and for the greater narrative. That is, in my view, what makes the work so stunning.

I don't know if the thought of 'recurrence' as necessary to structure is valid. Kie has been speaking to that idea in an alternate thread and he presently leans away from it. I will say that Thorn Forest does not dissuade my thoughts on recurrence. It is replete with recurrence, both of device and 'content glue' (love that Stew). Perhaps, as Kie has pointed out, the word 'recurrence' can imply something forced, predetermined, and more formal, giving the discussion too much weight to carry due to that perception? Some have suggested other words would more aptly describe the concept... I don't know. It's all just musings, and probably not worth anyone's time. But it's Ok to kick the tires once in a while, and look under the hood. I've already been enriched by others' willingness to respond with such thoughtful posts. I hope others will find value as well.

I have a nice copy of Sixty-six on my shelf. Hazkins is good people.

I thought of something else to add to this thread, so here goes:
(It's not the aughts anymore)



To Be Abused in a Sonnet of My Bonnet


How inadequate the couplet: either
metaphorical, physical or neither

a group nor pairing; a mechanism,
a device-rendered mono-chromic-ism

of tone; intentional terms detonated
in a manner contrived, resonated;

intense, but blunt application of forced
thrust and a beat that too often’s coerced

into a reliable word sausage

of extruded
ex-fabrication and

a poor way


to end poetry.


Just sayin'

I am posting this, not to re-enter the discussion (which I find distasteful), but because I feel that I may not have expressed my thought accurately, and I do not wish to leave a false impression:

The usual distinction people draw is between poetry and prose, and while that may have been useful back in the days when all poetry was metered, I do not believe that it still serves us, so I prefer this distinction: prose and verse - poetry can exist in either.

To restate it, poetry can exist in either prose or verse or even a blend of the two.

My own way of looking at it is that formal poetry (I'm picking my terminology carefully) begins with verse which is further refined with various poetic and literary devices. That is, of course, a simple, chronological schematic for the writing of formal poetry, and it may not actually happen in that exact order because our minds do not work that way. At least some of the aforementioned devices (which, when employed to mirror the thoughts being expressed, distinguish poetry from verse) may be present earlier on, even from the very beginning.

Further to that, free poetry (I'm picking my terminology carefully) begins with prose (as opposed to verse) which is further refined with various poetic and literary devices. That is, of course, a simple, chronological schematic for the writing of free poetry, and it may not actually happen in that exact order because our minds do not work that way. At least some of the aforementioned devices (which, when employed to mirror the thoughts expressed, distinguish poetry from prose) may be present earlier on, even from the very beginning.

These are not the only two possibilities, of course: hybrids (as already stated above)are possible. I think that most of what people call "free verse" is actually a blend of prose and verse (not metered, for instance but divided into lines, etc.).

In my own case, I find that my "free" verse tends to come out heavily iambic - I guess I feel it that way - and divided into lines from the beginning, usually with at least some poetic and literary devices in play, so I am starting at a point somewhere to the right of the prose end of the prose/verse continuum I postulate above. And while I cannot know, I think that most writers of "free verse" (better described as free poetry?) operate in a similar fashion (minus the profusion of iambs).

And now, feeling that I have expressed my thought accurately, I withdraw (again) from the discussion.

Well. I find pretty much every word of that distasteful, but most particularly "free verse begins with prose," since it doesn't.

Eta:

Excuse me. I didn't express my thought accurately. I meant, "since it fucking doesn't."