Craft

rhythm, meter, sound--good use of metaphor or at least an excellent hand at drawing a scene in words. A good poem, like a good song will be internally consistent, play with images:

Perhaps this will make you feel better

I completely understand what you are saying. Free verse is supposed to be even more structured than metric poetry. But I feel that the majority of aspiring poets (me included at times) fail to grasp this. In addition, the common consciousness, especially amongst young poets I have critiqued (I post on 4 poetry related forums) seem as you have said, to talk of betrayal at love. I think this has to do with the lack of excitement people find in ordinary life, and the basic fact that romance has been so heavily over dramatized in media for the past 50 years (more, but the copious amounts of romance novels and bad love songs, not to mention mediocre movies help create this allusion).

To make a great poem, you need both perfect structure, in terms of sound, word choice/placement, metre (even in free verse), line breaks, etc.

You also need a unique concept. If it has been said before, only better, the poem seems to lose my interest.
That being said, the great critic and writer (though a mediocre poet) Oscar Wilde said, "All bad poetry is sincere." The most sincere of the free verse stuff I have come across seems to be rubbish, only fit for a family photo-album, or to read to those involved. It is good poetry that goes beyond personal experience, and pushes towards a relatable collected consciousness in the world population.

The theme and the structure must both play off of each other, and the content must be fresh, and must deal with something more than the writer cares about, or can relate to, or learn from.

There are still popular and read poets. I thought that thread rather comical in many regards, since it wasn't asking "Why do people not read poetry" but was really asking "Why do people not read my poetry". I would think the free versification of poetry has killed most interest, since many people don't know what they are doing, but society has deemed a "Say it is art, and it is art." (I can't remember which artist said that).

There are some great contemporary poets, Thilias Moss, Rita Dove, Jayne Cortez, Li-Young Lee, Seamus Heaney, Jay Macpherson, Daryl Hine, etc. all of which have sold, and do sell.

I think, now that the new formalist movement has pretty much ebbed, people need to take more care with how they write their verses, instead of just stringing some images together (I have done this at times too, we all have, but the internet creates this allusion that we need to post everything). I think, also, that people, especially those who write poetry, need to read a lot more of it, and need to read more free verse poetry if they intend to write it. I know my education dealt mostly with canonical poets writing in metric lines, and it wasn't until I started my real education that I came across a good form of free verse. Even T. S. Eliot doesn't read like free verse to contemporary readers. Free verse has gone beyond that, and even beyond a down motion, to the point where you can have writing anywhere on the page, and can read in more than one direction. People who are writing, I find, have not encountered that, unless they look for it.

in answer to your question

I don't think metre matters much,
or any of that other technical huppla.
Poetry is about reaching down deep.
If your verse does that it's successful,
no matter how clumsily it's crafted.
The reason why poetry has become unpopular is do to poets insistence of sticking to the old rules of constructing verse, which stike most moderns as artificial and as a substitute for substance.
It's like looking at a woman with lots of makeup on. Maybe she really is beautiful under all that guck, but one tends to doubt it, otherwise she wouldn't have bothered with all that eyeliner and shadow and lip gloss, etc.

ps I read one of your posted poems App and liked it, so don't take this critique personal.

a mere commitment to formalism without the talent to execute it properly hardly makes for solid craft.

yet a commitment to free verse with the talent to execute it properly can make for a poem with the force and complexity of a thousand hacked-together sonnets.

the "modernist vs. traditionalist" conflict is vastly overblown. but division and accusations of "splitters" and "purists" always occur when any group competes for a smaller and smaller group of adherents. and that is where we are at.

a few centuries ago, novels were novel, music was performed, not broadcast, and poetry flourished because it had a valuable seat at the table.

now it's, in many ways, a relic. but i digress.

the "elements that compose well-crafted work" are invisible when successful.

all the reader sees of a clump of language that has somehow triggered something inside them.

whether you get there by parroting templates that worked in the past, or can harness the chaos and creeping surrealism in the modern psyche, is irrelevant.

the "elements that compose well-crafted work" are invisible when successful.

That's it, in a nutshell. It's like that deal in physics where, at some bizarre sub-atomic level, the act of merely trying to observe a certain particle or process renders it nonexistent.

If what you do captures people's hearts and souls, then in time others will imitate you and it will become a formal structure.

At which point it will--and rightfully so I think--begin to die.

It really is one of the things I love about poetry. The things that make it work are invisible when done well. We've seen some incredible evidence of that here. Poetry is more than the sum of it's words. Choosing the right elements to make that so is not always easy. I hardly notice what it was that made a poem work when it is there, but I know something's missing when it doesn't. All of the elements/poetic devices seem to show when it doesn't work.

JBI said:

I thought that thread rather comical in many regards, since it wasn't asking "Why do people not read poetry" but was really asking "Why do people not read my poetry".

Click to expand...

"That thread"--my thread?
JBI, surely I'm not as egotistical as that.

...out of all of my english teacher's (honors!) classes (more than 180 students), he knows of exactly two students who have even a little interest in poetry. Why aren't they reading Dove, Neruda, Cummings?

Again--why aren't people reading poetry?

"the "elements that compose well-crafted work" are invisible when successful."
good point, but do you think a work can still be good even if it doesn't have an underlying structure at it's core, if it is even possible to erect such an edifice?

by "underlying structure" do you mean traditional poetic form?

Yes, or any other structure dictating how the words and whatnot should be arranged.

anis said:

I don't think metre matters much,
or any of that other technical huppla.
Poetry is about reaching down deep.
If your verse does that it's successful,
no matter how clumsily it's crafted.
The reason why poetry has become unpopular is do to poets insistence of sticking to the old rules of constructing verse, which stike most moderns as artificial and as a substitute for substance.
It's like looking at a woman with lots of makeup on. Maybe she really is beautiful under all that guck, but one tends to doubt it, otherwise she wouldn't have bothered with all that eyeliner and shadow and lip gloss, etc.

ps I read one of your posted poems App and liked it, so don't take this critique personal.

Click to expand...

anis said:

"the "elements that compose well-crafted work" are invisible when successful."
good point, but do you think a work can still be good even if it doesn't have an underlying structure at it's core, if it is even possible to erect such an edifice?

Click to expand...

anis said:

Yes, or any other structure dictating how the words and whatnot should be arranged.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be thick. You are starting to confuse me. You think underlying structures are or are not necessary in a poem being well-crafted?

Sticking with your original post, I do think some elements are required if poetry is to be considered a craft instead of a rant.
Those elements don't necessarily dictate the words or the order of them, though many forms of poetry can influence those things.
Even free-form poetry needs to use poetic device to be effective.

Confused myself.
Okay, I think outright structure imposed on a poem, (ektoskeleton) is stuffy and a turn off to modern day audiences. But then Will raised an excellent point about good poetry having an internal skeleton or frame, which I acknowledged was fine, by contrast, though just as an aside, I wondered if that too might not be done away with, not necessarily to improve the poem, but just to give it a freer form, for the sake of experimentation.

temerity said:

"That thread"--my thread?
JBI, surely I'm not as egotistical as that.

...out of all of my english teacher's (honors!) classes (more than 180 students), he knows of exactly two students who have even a little interest in poetry. Why aren't they reading Dove, Neruda, Cummings?

Again--why aren't people reading poetry?

Click to expand...

They all listen to music. At least some of that is good poetry (I think the best poet of them all would have to be Wagner).

Ask this question back, how many of them read real novels. It isn't poetry reading that is down, but reading in general, because of lack of interest.

anis said:

Confused myself.
Okay, I think outright structure imposed on a poem, (ektoskeleton) is stuffy and a turn off to modern day audiences. But then Will raised an excellent point about good poetry having an internal skeleton or frame, which I acknowledged was fine, by contrast, though just as an aside, I wondered if that too might not be done away with, not necessarily to improve the poem, but just to give it a freer form, for the sake of experimentation.

Click to expand...

Structured verse is an older form than free verse. The reason isn't because it confines, but rather because it allows for rhythm, which helps trigger memory. I know Doctor Johnson used only to write half his poems out, because his memory could reconstruct the rest with just the rhyme. It is because of that that Homer, and the bards of old composed with metre.

Now we don't have that problem, but if a poem is scattered it takes away from the clarity of thought. There is no must for metre, but you look at most good free verse, and it is very metric. It has a sound, a feel, a pulse. You don't need to write a sestina to be metric. Walt Whitman's verses rely on assonance to create flow, Eliot's rely on repetition.

Look at the most famous poets of the day, they all have a hidden pulse in their poems which keeps the flow together.

JBI said:

They all listen to music. At least some of that is good poetry (I think the best poet of them all would have to be Wagner).

Ask this question back, how many of them read real novels. It isn't poetry reading that is down, but reading in general, because of lack of interest.

Click to expand...

In class I know that we have all read "real novels" due to necessity. Yes, at least some read "real novels" for pleasure as well; however, even those who read "real novels" steer away from poetry. I know I did. The music?--mostly mainstream rap, though I have to stress mostly.

Anyway, my real point was to correct you--I didn't ask "why don't people read my poetry" but rather "why don't people read poetry." To suggest that I'm really just concerned with who reads my writing (not poetry) is as incorrect as it is insulting; let's look at the bigger picture.

I hear what you're saying JBI.
In my own work I rely on rhythm, not as a memory aid, but to make the material easier for the reader to digest, as they'll know what to expect, and also so that the dramatic points along the route jump out, rather than getting lost amid the shuffle. I still remain facinated, though, about the possiblity of eliminating structure and rhythm as is done in avante guarde Jazz compositions.

maybe you're right, App, maybe?
Writing a poem isn't quite like building a house.
If you neglect to put up enough support beams in the later, the whole thing will collapse.
With poetry though...
Still you do have to be able to write very well to be a poet.
I'm not denying that for a second. You just may not have to be versed in the technical stuff, like rhythm and metre. Then again maybe you do. Must give the matter more thought...

a lot to ponder here.
I've become aware that some of my work is self focused and after stepping away a bit, I see much of it as just an emotional vent.
rather immature and not very inviting.
yet I am not ready to ditch some of the themes I explore-(family, personal history and how it molds, other self modifiers,) I need to step outside of my personal relationship to the events and attract the reader .. and perhaps meter is is a key there? it lends a predictability that draws others. personal experiences are universal and yet unique in perspective. i.e; most have lost a loved one, or had a heart broken.
interactive events. you have to be in the ring to experience them.
can one get some enjoyment as an observer, if the presentation is right?

many classic poets explore personal themes, but don't appear full of angst.
I have no examples, not one that can spout off the classics, and this is one lesson I'm learning here... read more.

William Haskins said:

a mere commitment to formalism without the talent to execute it properly hardly makes for solid craft.

yet a commitment to free verse with the talent to execute it properly can make for a poem with the force and complexity of a thousand hacked-together sonnets.


the "elements that compose well-crafted work" are invisible when successful.

all the reader sees of a clump of language that has somehow triggered something inside them.

whether you get there by parroting templates that worked in the past, or can harness the chaos and creeping surrealism in the modern psyche, is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

emphasis, mine.

Here is the crux of the matter. It is simple and direct--whatever tools you use to put a poem together should seem invisible--that's the art, that's the trick.

Bunk. Every popular song today is an extension of poetry, all wrapped in a structure of metrical and rhymed verse set to music. The problem with modern audiences, and here I'm generalizing, is that they need immediate gratification. Poetry doesn't deliver, instead forcing people to think beyond the immediate now. This is why poetry is unpopular to most modern audiences, IMHO.

anis said:

Confused myself.
Okay, I think outright structure imposed on a poem, (ektoskeleton) is stuffy and a turn off to modern day audiences. But then Will raised an excellent point about good poetry having an internal skeleton or frame, which I acknowledged was fine, by contrast, though just as an aside, I wondered if that too might not be done away with, not necessarily to improve the poem, but just to give it a freer form, for the sake of experimentation.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to try joining in this discussion as I've laid it all out before in an Essay, "On Writing Poetry" http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90376 which only Norman Gutter replied to, and a Poem, "Writing Poetry?" http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85143 which only Poeticpiers commented on.

What is the point in discussing what one likes or dislikes in "Poetry" without understanding the basic "Philosophies" and "Elements of Craftsmanship" on which such is based.

Read some texts on the elements of Poetry and read my Essay and my Poem,
Maybe then, you'll have the groundwork to understand what you are trying to discuss.

Jim Hoye,