What makes a poem "good?"

Can I define what makes a 'good' poem? Would it do any good to say what I like, dislike or am indifferent about? If I made a list of all the things I love in poems and someone followed it religiously, it might still fall short. It's more complex than a formula.

What is important for me, excluding mechanics, style or other specifics, it's the message and is it conveyed to me effectively.

When I write poetry I try to include universal theme and it's either polluted or enhanced by my view, my language, my style and technique choice or my mythology. It can work or not work. Be written once or rewritten dozens of times. My audience or readers are free to love it or hate it or not care.

It's all opinion.

DL Hegel said:

Can I define what makes a 'good' poem? Would it do any good to say what I like, dislike or am indifferent about? If I made a list . . ..

It's all opinion.

Click to expand...

And yet, there's something to be said when so many minds of vastly different times and trends can all agree on something, call it "good" (I wish this thread's OP had sought "great" instead of "good"!!) and even, possibly recite from memory a snatchet of such:

Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.


http://englishhistory.net/keats/poetry/odeonagrecianurn.html

Click to expand...

But that's probably just my blithe spirit talkin'!!!*






*these footnotes and taglines are creating monsters out of my posts!! With all due respect to Mary, Percy & John.

It is Mags, and a big difference between good and great.

kborsden said:

Must've been a slow submissions period That's bad, very bad...

ETA: you should see the rest of her pieces

Click to expand...

Coming back to this thread to say after a while -- WTF?

Blarg said:

Coming back to this thread to say after a while -- WTF?

Click to expand...

In and Out isn't too bad. Hella cryptic, but I think it's decipherable. Either it has to do with feeding a child or bulimia.

The others appear to be humourous dada-ish poems. The attorney one was actually quite well done.

Jeez, you really thought so? The same line repeated three times?

Whatever that trick is, I didn't find it compelling -- and she has already used it before in other poems. She seems to me like a one-trick pony with a lousy trick.

Blarg said:

Jeez, you really thought so? The same line repeated three times?

Whatever that trick is, I didn't find it compelling -- and she has already used it before in other poems. She seems to me like a one-trick pony with a lousy trick.

Click to expand...

It's repeated four times. The greek letters are a clue.

She may be a one trick pony. I likely wouldn't buy an anthology of hers.

Xelebes said:

It's repeated four times. The greek letters are a clue.

She may be a one trick pony. I likely wouldn't buy an anthology of hers.

Click to expand...

I don't even buy a single poem.

Gondomir said:

How much does the poem move you? Do you go to a happy visual place for a few seconds and then continue with your mundane existence? Good.

Are you stunned, weeping, mouth agape, transported to a world you never knew existed? Excellent.

Do you smile and inwardly muse, "I learned something interesting just now by reading this poem?" Good.

Does the memory of reading the poem haunt you for days like a repeating song and change your life in some meaningful way? Excellent.

Click to expand...

For me, this ^

NAThomas said:

But most of the poets I dig are dead

Click to expand...

Scans. I like!

Now to go back and finish reading the thread.

What a great question and a really fun discussion to read, though from the discussion so far I think we can certainly establish the subjectivity of the answer!

In very basic terms, I look for balance between form and meaning, and balance between the concrete and the esoteric.

The latter - the balance between the concrete and the esoteric - while by no means is the only deciding factor in determining a poem's worth, is by far the thing I find most new poets struggle with. Either we are focused entirely on the sensual, visual, physically concrete elements, or we are floating in confusing emotionalism unable to pack any punch because there's not a crumb of the concrete for us to relate to.

Exceptional poetry always seems to find that perfect, humming, thrumming balance.

Isn't "good" always determined by perception which is always subjective?

I feel like I "get it" when the poem "works", not only by form but by storyline.

I'm sure there are those that believe the words and "active" concepts involved in the poem are poems in themselves.

I think this question should be morphed into a different kind of question.

I don't think it's the question that's difficult; I wonder whether the question is relevant for me. Do I want a checklist of characteristics for a good poem? Any such list for me would have to include items so vague that they would be of almost no use in actually writing or assessing a poem.

Equally, there are aspects I enjoy in good poems, but they don't by themselves make a poem good, any more than adding vanilla to a cake would intrinsically improve it. It'll help, but you still have to mix and bake it. And not spell the name wrong when you ice it.

The difficulty for me is in defining meaningful terms. As Blarg pointed out on Page 1, there are great poems that apparently have almost nothing in common. What's more, people disagree adamantly on whether particular poems are great. So definition is, to some extent, futile.

But, if I read a poem (especially one of my own) and find myself asking, "Is this good?", there are two answers for me:

1) Wait, think about it, and read it again. Then ask again.

2) It's like wondering whether you should propose (or accept a proposal). If the answer isn't a clear "yes", then it must be "no". Or, at least, "not yet".

Interesting analogy....so, are we married to our poems? Or, at least seriously committed when we write one?

I'm committed to a standard of poetry - doing the best with it that I can. So, is that a yes?

I wonder what the children will look like.

They'll look like poems.

I am digging up old threads.

I think it is down to meaning or truth. And the meaning intensifies if it is central to the human experience. So if you would say something novel about death and every line is necessary in you saying it I think it would be difficult to fail.

Of course you need lots of things in the toolkit to transfer that meaning to the heart and mind of the reader. It is often these devices that can create that non-trivial insight. I think that the most powerful devices are metaphor and simile. Comparing one thing to another in a new simile is an insight. It brings the different worlds together, and the one world grows larger (that is, filled with more meaning). And our world is meaning. Without meaning our world shrinks and we despair. So it is a beautiful thing to be able to show how meaningful the world we are living in realy is. We feel better when we understand our place in the world.

Even though a poem you find to be true said that the world was chaotic it would actualy structure it.

I wouldn't dare say anything about death myself, but even small things can produce an experience of meaning in the reader. These small things is what I am currently writing about.

I guess reading (and writing) poetry is parallell to growing as a person. Both start as a small seed and with nurture and care grows bigger, and potentialy vast.