Poetic Forms

So - none of you are poets?

Crush,

I'm guessing that people were finding it very difficult to answer a question that contained its own answer:

Q: What is the point of poetic form?

A: It gives form to poems

Most of the people here who write poems use a variety of poetic forms when they do so.

People use poetic form because if you don't, your poems are usually not really poems and are, very often, very rubbish.

Cheers,

Mark

There's loads of forms,

look:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Poetic_form

Try some.

Cheers,

Mark

Thanks Mark

I do know about poetic forms and I don't choose to use them myself. Maybe that is why my poems are very often rubbish?

My quest is not to find out about poetic forms but to ask people why they might choose to use them.

And I disagree with you about the majority of people writing on here. It seems to me that most of them use free verse. (Rubbish?)

I don't count arranging free verse into three line stanzas or four lines ones or six line ones as using a form. Do you?

Thanks

Crush

Write how you like :) If it satisfies you, share it. Blahdeeblah. There are 'acceptable' norms which aren't difficult to master if you can be arsed. I know exactly what you mean about 'free verse' being given form. It's chocolate covered shite in most cases. :P

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

"I don't count arranging free verse into three line stanzas or four lines ones or six line ones as using a form. Do you?"

Well, people usually arrange poems in a particular way for a reason.

That either helps a reader's enjoyment or understanding of a poem or it doesn't.

That generally depends partly on the reader and partly on whether the poem's any good.

Whether free verse is more like to be shit that poems written to some form mostly depends on your initial prejudices.

I co-edit a small literary magazine and read over 1000 poems for each issue.

Most poems we get sent are awful. On balance, bad form poetry is worse than bad free verse but it's a close run thing.

"Maybe that is why my poems are very often rubbish?"

I don't think that your poems are rubbish at all. I think they are quite the thing. Ha.

I just arrange mine until they look and sound right to me, and then post away. That probably explains why most of 'em are so bad!

'I co-edit a small literary magazine and read over 1000 poems for each issue.'

You deserve a bloody medal then,Bukharinw.m.f.! I know that I have been experimenting with (deliberately) writing bad poetry: it's so upsetting that they seem to have as much merit as my legitimate efforts. Maybe some people (me for one) just need to get stuff out. I do think everyone should try sonnet,haiku,quintet,aubade - whatever they want... because until you know the rules you can't break them, can you? Equally, bring on the free verse, it's an accommodating medium, poetry: let's all experience the shock of the new. Again, God bless you Bukh and all editors everywhere, I hope none of you are too scarred by the exposure to the drivel.

It's chocolate covered shite in most cases. :P

But chocolate covered shite is still partly chocolate! (and also partly shite)

That said, I'm wondering if we should dispense with the "poetry" definition altogether... :?

pe
ps
oid

What is "the art of tea"?
And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

"Again, God bless you Bukh and all editors everywhere, I hope none of you are too scarred by the exposure to the drivel."

To be honest, the really bad stuff is quite amusing to read.

The annoying thing - probably due to the inexorable rise of poetry writing classes - is the huge volume of mediocre poetry.

That's stuff by people who have a technical understanding of how you'd write a poem but have absolutely nothing to write about.

A particular bugbear is people who write poems about paintings that give an exhaustive, literal description of what the picture looks like.

Reading that kind of stuff is like looking at your auntie's paint-by-numbers pictures but without the pleasure of the visual stimulus.

In former times it was related to fashion. Look at Elizabethan sonnets. And look at French courtly poetry. French poetic tradition probably has more variety than its English equivalent.

You could say, (shite or not,) that free verse is the fashion today.

My latest killing is:
http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

First of all a big welcome to crush, who is the rising star of our poetry section here. I welcome his/her poems and my heart leaps a little when I see one on the edit list.

I too read an awful lot of mediocre poetry here and my take on it is that the bad stuff often is the 'outpouring of the heart' that we all need to do from time to time - especially in our teenage years it would seem! There's nothing wrong with doing it - just don't think that it makes you a great poet. I think that the sheer volume of it on here should make those angst-ridden souls amongst us think 'I am not alone'!

As for form, when good it's very very good. A Shakespeare sonnet, for example, stands up to years of analysis and just gets better and better the more you look at it and understand it. But for immediacy of impact then it's free verse for me every time. A poem can say so much more than its words and those that do in an accessible and entertaining way are the poems of the modern age.

Swinburne, now regarded as a minor English poet, was so popular in his day that people would rush out to buy his latest tome, memorise the words and quote them to each other in the street. It's not going to happen today. We have more to divert us, more to look at, more to visually stimulate our minds. We want quicker fixes and free verse is often easier to take in. I also agree that we should study form, that we should work at it and then choose to twist it or disregard it as we see fit. An artist who cannot draw is never going to be much of an artist - just as a poet who cannot scan, rhyme or write to the rules has never had to go through the rigour that characterises academic learning.

"As for form, when good it's very very good."

I agree with most of what Tony says above but particularly this.

Writing good poems using a strict form is very, very difficult.

For example, I really like rhyming poems but in the magazine I co-edit we print, on average, one in every two issues.

This is mainly because rhyming couplets are the form of choice for people who think that you can write good poetry despite not reading any poetry and writing the first thing that comes into your head.

While also passionately believing that if the word at the end of line two rhymes with the word at the end of line four, it doesn't matter that the rest of words don't fit together and make little or no sense.

'So - none of you are poets?'

Sorry, forgot
to say 'I'm not'.

(bet you loved that Bukh! LMAO)

Reading this thread got me inspired, and I finished up battling with a villanelle. It was sooooo hard, but such good fun and rewarding to get to the end, having stuck to the 'rules' - even if the way you have expressed the key themes is a bit disappointing (but that's a battle with all poems). You have to sort of map it out and then you find the necessary rhymes are really restrictive, then you go back and restructure lines over and over until it's a bit easier to rhyme etc...and all the time you are supposed to be able to pursue the theme successfully, anyway, I'll post it up.

I will definitely try some more. Auden's 'But I Can't' - famously set to music by The Communards is a brilliant example - the success is in the couplet.

Emma, well done, if you've got the syllable-count correct all the way through your villanelle.

My latest killing is:
http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

"Sorry, forgot
to say 'I'm not'.

(bet you loved that Bukh! LMAO)"

That's fine. It's really short.

'That's fine. It's really short.'

Touché! I retire, wounded to write more bad poetry.

Pat - thanks for the alert...with a quick revision, I think I've managed to achieve 10 syllables per line!

Great fun to do, though the form forced out of me something on a bit of a traditional theme and a bit contrived. It was a nice way to spend some time. I have lots on my hands at the moment as I'm recovering from a major op. and am not allowed out of the house!

I found it really good fun to search the net for 'good' examples from the likes of Dylan and Scannell. I'm a fan of Scannell, I once met him...a gentle giant. There's a fabulous portrait of him on a website I browsed past...er...
http://www.warpoets.org/conflicts/ww2/scannell/

The villanelle by him is at the bottom of the page.

I realised what you were doing, Emma, but the glory of poetry got lost in the form. It all fits correctly, as far as I can see, but it said nothing new! I'm sure it just goes to show how darn difficult it is.

You're right, Tony - the form made it really hard, the form is the dominant thing, not the poetry (in this case). I think it probably takes a lot longer to succeed with poems in strict forms, you need to be very experienced as a poet, but, most of all, have something to express in a new way. I don't think we always have to say new things though - just to remake and remake (there's a Goethe quote about that but I can't remember how it goes).
The message of my poem was essentially about living for the moment instead of pondering over the mysteries - that it's better to spend hours skimming pebbles and having fun that staring out at the horizon wondering about the meaning of life or regretting the past etc!
Actually - when I went browsing examples of Villanelles the ones cited as being 'great' didn't do much for me. Wikepedia takes you to Elizabeth Bishop, but it didn't get me going.
I see Wilkybarkid has started one...it's worth a go, if only to find out how hard it is to function creatively within the constraints.
But that's just it eh...if you succeed, you have the form adding effectiveness to the poem - as well as the effectiveness of your words and imagination - a double whammy!
Mozart wrote music for his wonderful operas to naff words/stories - in his case the music was enough to win the day, and nobody much cared about the daft improbable plots then, everything else mattered.
Wagner tried to invent his own language for opera to address this...
but I'm drifting now!

I've found the Goethe - I like this one:

Und umzuschaffen das Geschaffene,
Dass sich's nicht zum Starren waffne,
Wirkt ewiges lebendiges Thun.

Translation:

'And refashioning the fashioned,
Lest is stiffen into iron,
Is work of an endless vital activity.'

Just read your villanelle, Emma, and on first appraisal... I love it! :)

Without analysing too much, I think the rhythm is perfectly appropriate to the subject matter... keep 'em coming! :)

pe
ps
oid

What is "the art of tea"?
And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

'I've found the Goethe - I like this one:

Und umzuschaffen das Geschaffene,
Dass sich's nicht zum Starren waffne,
Wirkt ewiges lebendiges Thun.

Translation:

"And refashioning the fashioned,
Lest is stiffen into iron,
Is work of an endless vital activity."

Is there a typo in the translation?'

I'm not a fan mind, I think he's Goethe lot to answer for. (The Sorrows of Werner? Please.)

To each their own.

No typo in it. The source of the translation is a quality one.

Absolutely - the whole German Romantic tradition has a lot to answer for...but you have to look at it all in context, and take the best from it (we can now it's over)...isn't it 'Werther?' I only know because I once sang a piece from an opera entitled 'Werther' by Massenet. Perhaps you were just inserting a tongue in cheek typo...

Still like the quote though, the stiffening of creativity into 'iron' (followed by rust..?) unless we keep on remaking...

Thanks pepsoid.

Ha wish I had been! Yep Werther, like the sweets and sickly if you have too much/many. :-)

Should it be

'Lest it stiffen

vice

'Lest is stiffen'?

That's what I meant.

And the quote is a good one I agree.

Ah, yes, ofcourse - I was looking for a large typo and missed that...well spotted.

Grrr...*of course*...this is what comes of trying to type with a book in one hand and a cup of tea intermitently in the other.

Mtzlpytlk

Or a glass of wine.

:-)

A glass of wine would be great...but I'm convalescing...*hic*...and am not allowed.

I'll raise one in your honour...

get well soon

BTW a hat off to your Villanelle, I tried one a few months ago and yes, you guessed it, it was more of a Villainous abuse of poetry.

Ewan

Yikes to the punnage! :/

pe
ps
oid

What is "the art of tea"?
And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

"What is the point of poetic form?" It is an interesting and little understood question. It gets to the very heart of what language and communication are or are supposed to be. How do you convey an idea in sound or print or multi media?

Generally, we are all taught a rather complex format, of generally accepted sounds and written symbols, that represent ideas and concepts.You have but to travel to a country, where another language is spoken, to begin to understand that "rules of expression" govern level of understanding.If there are no rules, then how will anyone else, other than the poet, know what is being communicated? I think the "tower of babel," in the bible, represents this concept.Even symbolism, however mystical and arcane, has generally accepted representations.Other wise, is one heard "screaming in an empty forest? No one will ever know.

Poetry, much like music, is rhythmic and emotional.It has an attractive cadence of syllables that give it both power and hypnotic appeal. Like rhythmic chanting, one need not need to understand the actual language to be affected or intrigued by the intonations.

A musical graph has a skeltal framework, upon which to designate certain pitches of sound, that represent all manner of concepts. Poetic form serves as the same organic format. However much you choose to deviate, from the accepted format, is a matter of artistic choice. The greater the degree of variance, the more avant garde the interpretations may become.Perhaps that is as the poet wishes.

Poetry, like prose, is an expression of ideas that you hope your reader will hear/read and understand. The more difficult you make the work intelligible, the less readers will bother to try and read or understand you.They are of course the "ultimate jury" that passes judgement on your work.

Form is a function of expression.Each person chooses that which best suits his pattern of thoughts. Who, and how many, understand and appreciate your work, is to a degree within your control. Some questions have no answers, but rather deifnitions of possible alternative realities.

Great question on a writing board, though.

J.X.M

Maybe there are some symbols, methods of communication, so ingrained in the human psyche that they are totally unconscious and so are wielded by the writer unintentionally?
Like Jung’s collective unconscious?
Maybe humans are like many animals which have a herd instinct- less a form of communication, more noticing the actions of others and what they imply?
Maybe you don’t need to tailor your writing to any audience to be understood.
I think that I rather agree with whoever up the thread said that poetic form changes with the fashions. It’s a bit of a contrivance really, but I suppose it adds something special with all the extra effort and time that it means you have to put in, and the effect can add gravitas to your work, depending on your subject matter.

This is the basis of this week's Inspiration Point so go on folks - give it a go!

I did :) I mean, I think I wrote an English sonnet there with Carried Away. Perhaps it doesn't scan properly. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Not sure. But... I think I did...?