Not necessarily. To deliberately 'break free of what is expected' implies the writer 'knows what is expected'. A personal free-for-all can be just self-indulgence.

I do think this title, Function and Form, is the basic poetical axe grinder since forever. After some studying up in recent years, I personally call the endless argument the 'does-ness' of Plato and the 'is-ness' of Aristotle. And I find this teacup definition keeps me focussed on basic purpose.

In my clearest moments I really do strive to have a 'form' that passes poetical criteria of self-containment, and yet in content may still stimulate a thought or two.

This is just me, poking along with ideas for my own work. And trying to understand and incorporate the wisdom of writers past and present, not always those well-known.

Without people breaking conceived notions of poetry (or any art), it would not progress.

whilst regressing to traditions and boundaries has its merits (i am by no means an anarchist), it is the people who dare to be different and who invite criticism that forward an artform.

if we remain inside a box all our life, we may never see that the box next door has better furniture.

Pablo Picasso
Jimi Hendrix
Giorgio Moroder
Jack Kerouac
Joseph Haydn

All people who did things different to the norm. The list of people these five alone have inspired is endless.

Sticking to function and form is the ideal way by which to streamline your own point of view in a way easily accessible to others. Harking back to the set, base standard of verse/stanza/free verse etc. and the associated styles stemming from these is often the 'safe way' as it's been established over the centuries.

David has said above that all the greatest poets are currently undiscovered. Whilst I can't entirely agree with this statement, I see the point that relates to artform, expression and the ways of conveying these. As Cynthia says, the danger of perceiving self-indulgence is there, and is undoubtedly the greatest stumbling block to any new, noticeable leaps in terms of function and form.

Last year Jeremy Paxman made some criticisms of
the present day poetry situation in Britain...among
them were.

1... Poets had stopped talking to the general public.
2...They only addressed each other.
3...poetry needed to raise it`s game.
4...That there needed to be a general inquisition
among poets to discuss what they are actually
doing.

Martin Newell in an article in a national newspaper
went further and said that poetry had become `the
victim of an inelegant, greedy appropriation by the
academic world, as the literature departments of our
universities hunch like daft neurotic dogs over the
much chewed bones of poetry` (a mouthful if there
ever was one!)

Paxman is talking about the status of present day
poetry with the general public.

Newell is proposing a reason why.

So far no internal inquisition.

The most visible profession apparent in much of the
publications, talks and competitions in poetry seems
to me to be academia. ( Poetry work-shops etc) Does
any one think that this is the reason why present day poetry has become irrelevant to the general public?

In other words is all this academic work-shop activity on
present day academically `acceptable` poetic form and
function helping or hindering the status of poetry in the
world of today?

I`d like to hear opinions.

Harry, the 'poetry societies' which I have experienced have been varied and always stimulating, welcoming the academic and the novice of all ages and abilities. The spread was often challenging, but always rewarding. Open-minded. They were not performances, but presentations of our works read from the printed page with multiple copies provided for discussion afterwards. We shared information, ideas, suggestions. I learned a lot from the more experienced members, and much from the novices.

At one meeting of such a gathering, a 'professor-type' was pontificating on a contributed poem, not kindly, as the twenty-odd persons sat respectfully blank and silent, and the writer looked squashed. When the 'professor' finally drew breath, I said very quietly, but firmly, 'I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you.' And proceeded to say why. He looked daggers at me. The whole table of poets came to life to participate in 'the discussion'. I had no idea I was 'bucking the system.'

I had just joined this group barely twenty minutes before, a total stranger in a new club, in a new land. And I was LATE. I definitely had more crust than apple pie. But it was supposed to an 'open forum' after all. And the stupid tram had broken down blocks away from the meeting place. I had run to get there as fast as I did.

I stayed with that poetry society for many years, very rarely missing its scheduled meetings. Some of it was wonderfully academic, with speciallized leadership offered by many varied sources. It did become a warm nourishing atmosphere that encouraged each member. I really miss it.

Cynthia,
Appreciation for your prompt comment.

I attended (only one) of the kind of societies you are speaking about, some years ago. It was much as you say with - particularly - minimal interference from the leader. Dominated mainly by shared interest and a desire not to criticise over-much or offend (which was natural but tended to kill things somewhat)

But I am thinking more of the workshop style - the ones usually overseen by someone with a bit of `form` in the poetry competition or academic fields, and therefore looked upon as a reliable teacher.

I became alarmed last year when a group of experienced and published poets workshopped the Adlestrop poem (search Adlestrop above). Particularly when I read that a prominent teacher often gave similar advice to the advice the four poets used when criticising Thomas` poem.

Although it was said that the exercise was conducted in a spirit of fun and that the criticisms used did not apply to the Adlestrop poem ( for - debatable - reasons which the teacher gave). To me the poet`s restrictive use and the teacher`s carte blanche use of the same advice was a bit too comical, even for laughter.

There needs to be more - civil - pluck at these kind of things.

Colin,
`The way to define `poetry` is to define a particular
poem....It`s function is what the poet is attempting to do
with it, and it`s form is the typographical, musical, or free
shape that the poet uses to achieve his aim.

The way to decide if it is `poetry` or not is to have the thing
in front of you on the table and - whether you agree or not
about it`s being poetry - to say so and , like Cynthia above,
proceed to say why.

I know that this can be embarrassing with peoples personal
pieces but - in the interest of educating ourselves - why not
do it with one of the classics?

For instance:

Sonnet 130

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

What would you (or-come on folks!-anyone else) say
about the function or manner of this one.

Why not take it down off it`s altar and give it a beginner
at the workface going over...I`m sure the Bard wouldn`t
mind?

I've resisted getting into this because I've not had much to say until now.

I'll answer a bit of Harry's question about Shakespeare.

The function of Sonnet 130 is partly to praise his beloved, but he does so by taking the cliches of the Tudor sonnet and critiqueing them. He is in fact very much addressing 'other poets' of his age, and saying 'buck up your ideas.' He's saying 'My mistress is a real person, not a Platonic ideal or a goddess, and all the better for it.'

Especially in the 17th Century, sonnet sequences were not particularly public things. Shakespeare's plays, of course, were meant to be popular, but apart from unauthorised publications, Shakespeare didn't publish the sonnets for general consumption. They only really became 'public property' after his death. Which makes the question of audience rather moot.

I don't think we can go back in time and read poetry of the past by the 'standards of today' in any case. Tastes change and what was accepted then will probably be seen as odd now. That's what happens: the world changes and keeps on changing. In some ways it gets better (people don't tend to die of measles) but in the case of the arts, things just change. Even if we wanted to, nobody could write a play like Euripides anymore; we don't live in that world.

Not that we can't learn from the past; but it's pointless copying them slavishly. We don't have to put the past on an altar; but neither do we have to criticise it for not being modern.

Thanks, Steven, for taking the trouble to give a reading.

I understand that it is just answering a `bit` of the question

I think your reading of it is very modern, in that it says a lot
about the function (intention?) of the poet without quoting
any words or phrases from the poem itself.

Obviously the poem demonstrates that it`s particular function
is here served very well by the sonnet form it is using.

His hundred and fifthieth use of the form hardly suggests that
he thought it a cliche.

I know that the sonnets had only a limited circulation among
any other poets at the time, but this one would presumably
have been read in the company of all his others (which were
doing what your reading says he regarded as cliches) It would
have looked like something of an own goal.

Even if your account of it`s intention (function) is correct, then
the poet is very exactly using the sonnet form to satirise the
sonnet form. which shows that he is slavishly copying the form
to very good effect.

Looking at the actual words: Sun, coral, snow, roses, perfumes,
music, goddess, much of the `furniture` of the traditional love
sonnet is presented as being contrastively absent from the
poet`s mistress, but if the value of such `furniture` is not given
it`s due weight, then the `rarity` of the poet`s love is devalued.
(By the way, doesn`t the placing of that word `rare` in this kind
of poem make you think?)

I`ve ignored the opinion that -this being one of the `Dark Lady`
sequence - the poet`s mistress is black and he is rather angry
at her on the grounds of (despite the doubtful`black wires`)
that `reeks` being non-complexional and immediately after a
repeated `my mistress`, and the contrastive (associative?) love
furniture being rather complimentary than demeaning.

If we ever do have Paxman`s inquisition of modern poetry, I
think the first thing we should look at at is function and form.
Thanks again

I don't think he saw the sonnet itself as a cliché, otherwise he wouldn't have written so many... he just thought that certain tropes/images that were common at the time were clichés.

I read a book recently about Shakespeare in 1599, and it was talking about the unauthorised publication of some of his sonnets (and some bits from the plays) in an anthology. It said that he'd taken some of the sonnets already written and rewritten them to make them (in his opinion) less obvious and better.

I doubt very much that the coterie who would have read these poems in manuscript would have read all of them at once, by the way, as he was working on them throughout his writing career.

And actually - 'very exactly copying the sonnet form' - I don't know if he was the originator of the English sonnet, which is different from the original Italian form, but he was at least one of the first to use it. So there's invention there too. As in his plays, he's both innovative and traditional.

The word 'rare' is interesting; thanks for pointing it out. He is basically saying, I think, that she is rare not so much 'despite' not being like coral, the sun, etc but because she's not. She's special on her own terms. That's my reading anyway.

All poetry is partly in dialogue with poetry of the past and the present. If that's all it does, it becomes insular and distant from real life, but that is part of its function. That can be quite daunting, and there's no way anyone can keep up with everything that is being written never mind what has been written. But even the most 'experimental' poet is part of the history of poetry. The Greeks were among the first to write 'concrete' poetry for instance.

I don't think you can say what the function of poetry as a whole is, because there's all kinds of poetry. Some poetry appeals to a lot of people, some only to a few. Some is political, or religious, or personal; some isn't. Poetry at various times and in various places has had lots of different functions. And it comes in all kinds of forms, from Anglo-Saxon alliterative to late Rennaisance formalist, to Modernist, to Pop, to whatever...

Paxman seems to want poetry to decide on one function and stick to it. I don't see why it has to. Variety is spice of life.

I hope that you will allow me a newcomer to put in my "tuppence" worth.
I read through each comment and my tuppence is not to agree or disagree with anyone but to put it more from my perspective as to what my poetry is in "function and form".
My take on it may not be like yours but I find that my poetry's function and form is as individual as the poem that I am writing. Whilst writing, the poem takes its own form shape and function and IMO is as important as what the poem is trying to convey...how I convey the poem I'm writing in form is - for me - as important as punctuation etc...
To me a poet is someone who expresses him/herself in a way that is unique to them and how "best" to express that belongs to the poet...Thanks for listening...

Hi, just a short word on this as it does interest me.
For me poetry seems to have many functions.
Expressing moods and feelings by describing your world in ways that carry your feeling with the words is the function of some poems.
Recalling the past by searching for the remembered experience of senses, sounds, scents, colours, fears.
Getting rid of difficult emotions that go round and round in your head.
Enjoying words, and putting them together to see where they take you.
Catching a phrase and following where it leads.
Capturing a tale that might otherwise be overlooked.
Trying to hold a moment before it vanishes forever.

And form? There are lots of guides to clever structures with rhyme schemes and syllable counts, and if you like a challenge its worth trying to meet the rules and get what you want to say on paper in spite of the restrictions of form, because those restrictions challenge you not to be overcome by them, but to discover what you really mean when that cliched phrase you use doesn't fit.
Rhythm has its own function, to help express the mood and meaning. If you ignore rhythm entirely you may not make a memorable poem. Rhythm is partly there to aid memory after all.
Thats my two pennyworth