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."
i just laughed crawfish out my nose.
Poetry.Probably more comfortable than bratwurst
Wow! I had no idea this would be so hot!
Jeff, I saw you posted the same question earlier, directed toward me. I'll respond in full tomorrow when I have more time.
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.
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.
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.
You can find my answer here--I thought it best to start a new discussion
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.
. . poem.