Poetry Craft
I have taken the liberty of lifting another poet's comments to ask this new question......
.........."so many poems on this site would lift from average to splendid with a little attention to poetry craft as well as emotions".
Discuss?
.........."so many poems on this site would lift from average to splendid with a little attention to poetry craft as well as emotions".
Discuss?
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:08 am
I can only speak for myself.
I would love to improve my poetry craft (I won't waste time worrying about a definition) and from time to time I believe I have developed somewhat stronger powers concerning many aspects of my poetry.
These achievements were generally attained through effort rather than the simple passage of time, even if the effort was merely reading poetry and stopping to think about it.
Personally I find it wonderful to see improvement in the arts; be it musicianship, literary competence, etc.
I see a huge range of poetry styles here on WOL and no 'need' for such varied artists to attempt drastic leaps in their poetic ability. Each to their own.
I would love to improve my poetry craft (I won't waste time worrying about a definition) and from time to time I believe I have developed somewhat stronger powers concerning many aspects of my poetry.
These achievements were generally attained through effort rather than the simple passage of time, even if the effort was merely reading poetry and stopping to think about it.
Personally I find it wonderful to see improvement in the arts; be it musicianship, literary competence, etc.
I see a huge range of poetry styles here on WOL and no 'need' for such varied artists to attempt drastic leaps in their poetic ability. Each to their own.
Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:19 am
I'm always a bit wary of the word 'craft' when applied to poetry; perhaps because the word reminds me too much of basket-weaving and macramé; but I do think paying attention to editing and making the poem better is time well spent.
You can overdo it however and end up with a 'perfect' poem with no life in it. And people work in different ways. Some build up a poem slowly, clause by clause, line by line. For others, there might be a lot going on in the head before it's ever put on paper. Then again, others use chance techniques, cut-n-paste, dream logic to make their poems.
Reading poetry by others, including poetry by people you might not be entirely in sympathy with, can certainly help. You can learn from writing 'parodies' for instance, or 'tributes to.'
Unless you're following the 'rules' of metre and rhyme, there is no correct way of writing a poem, which means it's highly unlikely that everyone will like what you write. Even with rhyme & metre, there's room for 'breaking' or 'bending' the rules.
You can overdo it however and end up with a 'perfect' poem with no life in it. And people work in different ways. Some build up a poem slowly, clause by clause, line by line. For others, there might be a lot going on in the head before it's ever put on paper. Then again, others use chance techniques, cut-n-paste, dream logic to make their poems.
Reading poetry by others, including poetry by people you might not be entirely in sympathy with, can certainly help. You can learn from writing 'parodies' for instance, or 'tributes to.'
Unless you're following the 'rules' of metre and rhyme, there is no correct way of writing a poem, which means it's highly unlikely that everyone will like what you write. Even with rhyme & metre, there's room for 'breaking' or 'bending' the rules.
Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:51 pm
agree with this wholeheartedly ^^^^
for a lot of people poetry is just a way to exorcise demons, to cathartically spew out words with reckless abandon in order to make themselves heard.
i have never, nor will ever, count syllables or care a jot about metre and form (haiku aside). even less so rhyme (and reason?)
not that the above arent important, they certainly are, i suppose it just comes down to how you approach poetry. like most things in life, each person is different.
sometimes poetry can seem impenetrable, and the majority of this (in my opinion only) is down to 1) the tedious way its taught in schools and 2) the image that a lot of people have of poets being fastidious form faeries, keen to aspire to those whose writings are no longer culturally relevant (again, my opinion only).
there is also the argument that a large amount of the poetry on here (mine included) is meant to be bellowed down a mic at scared people. i usually write with oration in mind and just honestly dont feel that clipping and cutting a piece to bits to fit in to someones (whose?) preconceived vision of 'poetry' does the piece any good. the best things i have wrote (my opinion again) are the things that have taken the least detours on the way to the page. this allows my true feelings to come through, unsullied by the need to encapsulate them in a more academical nature. now of course, the true greats are/were able to do both but this is a blog site for people who enjoy writing. there's a reason patience agbabi and andrew mcmillan dont have a WOL blog (greatest respect meant and my opinion only (again!))
maybe the way to introduce people to the joys of writing and reading poetry is to rely less on iambic pentameter and strict rhyming schemes and more on allowing them to divulge their feelings through words, thus enabling them to feel the undoubted high when it works.
for a lot of people poetry is just a way to exorcise demons, to cathartically spew out words with reckless abandon in order to make themselves heard.
i have never, nor will ever, count syllables or care a jot about metre and form (haiku aside). even less so rhyme (and reason?)
not that the above arent important, they certainly are, i suppose it just comes down to how you approach poetry. like most things in life, each person is different.
sometimes poetry can seem impenetrable, and the majority of this (in my opinion only) is down to 1) the tedious way its taught in schools and 2) the image that a lot of people have of poets being fastidious form faeries, keen to aspire to those whose writings are no longer culturally relevant (again, my opinion only).
there is also the argument that a large amount of the poetry on here (mine included) is meant to be bellowed down a mic at scared people. i usually write with oration in mind and just honestly dont feel that clipping and cutting a piece to bits to fit in to someones (whose?) preconceived vision of 'poetry' does the piece any good. the best things i have wrote (my opinion again) are the things that have taken the least detours on the way to the page. this allows my true feelings to come through, unsullied by the need to encapsulate them in a more academical nature. now of course, the true greats are/were able to do both but this is a blog site for people who enjoy writing. there's a reason patience agbabi and andrew mcmillan dont have a WOL blog (greatest respect meant and my opinion only (again!))
maybe the way to introduce people to the joys of writing and reading poetry is to rely less on iambic pentameter and strict rhyming schemes and more on allowing them to divulge their feelings through words, thus enabling them to feel the undoubted high when it works.
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:04 am
I suspect I differ from Stu in that writing stuff in rhythm as I usually do takes some thinking about. It is the constant wrestle between sense and rhythm. Effectively, for me, it's about not being able to say exactly what I want.
On the other hand I can rattle out a bit of prose (which sometimes I chop into little lines and sometimes I don't) in a few minutes and it's usually about 95% complete.
On the other hand I can rattle out a bit of prose (which sometimes I chop into little lines and sometimes I don't) in a few minutes and it's usually about 95% complete.
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 05:39 pm
...and so...if anyone DID want to raise their poetry to a more splendid level, what nuggets of advice might help them?
my top tip is - leave it for a few days. What's the rush to fling it out there? When you return to it it's quite likely that some improvements will leap out at you as obvious.
my top tip is - leave it for a few days. What's the rush to fling it out there? When you return to it it's quite likely that some improvements will leap out at you as obvious.
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:58 pm
Sick...or not...I can`t ignore this one.
The valuable paragraph in Steven`s is the third (because both `parodies` and `tributes to` are both modern examples of imitations. (of various individual examples of literary crafts)
Para one just means that the weaving and folding of both
basketry and macrame are examples of the crafting which
should be done to any work.
In para four it must be pointed out that no one can break, or bend any rules unless there are first of all rules there to be broken. (and the reason for breaking them becoming obvious in the way the poem finally `works`)
Para two - even when true - is just a case of `all things to all men` attitude to poetry.
`Free` form is encouraging, in that it allows people who feel that they have something to `say` to get down to some actual writing, which is good. But poetry on the page is essentially communication, and this requires some shared communion of form...Poetry is not so much what you say, but overwhelmingly the way you say it ( It`s how you tell `em).
Stu`s somewhat anarchic approach has one advantage in that it talks about addressing your thoughts to other people...or orating them. This requires thinking about some mutual `form` of address that makes what we say more (poetically) effective (or being `crafty` if you like)
I wonder what the kind of poetry that can be `bellowed down a mic` would sound like if handled in the kind of iambic five beat that starts off Mark Anthony`s grim rant in Julius Ceasar
`Oh pardon me thou bleeding piece of earth
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers.
Even considering the fact that we`re not Shakespeare must convince us that the form is more memorable and powerful (not to mention the poetry)...My own personal opinion is that iambic is so native to the English rhythm of speech that our ears almost automatically `listen`
for it in even the `free` style of poetry.
John uses many forms in his work, I always feel that when he does some of his pastiches of past musical hits he is also paying tribute to the way popular music has kept up the popularity of rhyme in the popular mind during the recent great age of popular music.
Colin and Adam come at it from different ends, but I like their concluding artistic humility.
The valuable paragraph in Steven`s is the third (because both `parodies` and `tributes to` are both modern examples of imitations. (of various individual examples of literary crafts)
Para one just means that the weaving and folding of both
basketry and macrame are examples of the crafting which
should be done to any work.
In para four it must be pointed out that no one can break, or bend any rules unless there are first of all rules there to be broken. (and the reason for breaking them becoming obvious in the way the poem finally `works`)
Para two - even when true - is just a case of `all things to all men` attitude to poetry.
`Free` form is encouraging, in that it allows people who feel that they have something to `say` to get down to some actual writing, which is good. But poetry on the page is essentially communication, and this requires some shared communion of form...Poetry is not so much what you say, but overwhelmingly the way you say it ( It`s how you tell `em).
Stu`s somewhat anarchic approach has one advantage in that it talks about addressing your thoughts to other people...or orating them. This requires thinking about some mutual `form` of address that makes what we say more (poetically) effective (or being `crafty` if you like)
I wonder what the kind of poetry that can be `bellowed down a mic` would sound like if handled in the kind of iambic five beat that starts off Mark Anthony`s grim rant in Julius Ceasar
`Oh pardon me thou bleeding piece of earth
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers.
Even considering the fact that we`re not Shakespeare must convince us that the form is more memorable and powerful (not to mention the poetry)...My own personal opinion is that iambic is so native to the English rhythm of speech that our ears almost automatically `listen`
for it in even the `free` style of poetry.
John uses many forms in his work, I always feel that when he does some of his pastiches of past musical hits he is also paying tribute to the way popular music has kept up the popularity of rhyme in the popular mind during the recent great age of popular music.
Colin and Adam come at it from different ends, but I like their concluding artistic humility.
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:14 pm
I'm only going to disagree with one thing in Harry's contribution, and that is with the line about 'free' form.
And only partly even then. Free verse can of course be dreadfully loose and ill-disciplined; it can be all over the place. But as Eliot noted, no verse is free if you want to do a good job. Bunting's advice is to 'take out every word you dare'; then 'leave if for a week'; then 'take out every word you dare.' In a 'free verse' poem, every word counts toward the overall effect, or it's left out.
Bad rhyme/metre poetry, however, often has redundancies to keep the metre up, rhymes that are put in for 'because it has to rhyme' not because it actually works, and the metre is mechanical not natural. Even in the short extract from Shakespeare, the second line ends with a feminine ending (downbeat) and the rhythm of the start of that line depends entirely how you speak it.
Actually, 'free verse' done well reveals the other influence on British poetry, that of Anglo-Saxon. Iambic pentatmetre is an import from Romance languages, whereas the 4-stress alliterative verse of Beowulf is much older, and deeper. Iambic tends to the rhetorical, to the speech of the upper classes. The groundlings speak Anglo-Saxon.
And only partly even then. Free verse can of course be dreadfully loose and ill-disciplined; it can be all over the place. But as Eliot noted, no verse is free if you want to do a good job. Bunting's advice is to 'take out every word you dare'; then 'leave if for a week'; then 'take out every word you dare.' In a 'free verse' poem, every word counts toward the overall effect, or it's left out.
Bad rhyme/metre poetry, however, often has redundancies to keep the metre up, rhymes that are put in for 'because it has to rhyme' not because it actually works, and the metre is mechanical not natural. Even in the short extract from Shakespeare, the second line ends with a feminine ending (downbeat) and the rhythm of the start of that line depends entirely how you speak it.
Actually, 'free verse' done well reveals the other influence on British poetry, that of Anglo-Saxon. Iambic pentatmetre is an import from Romance languages, whereas the 4-stress alliterative verse of Beowulf is much older, and deeper. Iambic tends to the rhetorical, to the speech of the upper classes. The groundlings speak Anglo-Saxon.
Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:40 am
Oh, by the way, I do have a very 'all things to all people' attitude to the writing of poetry. Whatever turns you on is ok by me, whatever you call poetry is ok by me.
However, that doesn't mean I have to like every single thing you write, nor do I have to read it or hear it. I can make comments on your writing (if asked) but it will be according to the criteria I use in my won writing and you may or may not agree with me.
I don't think there's a single set of criteria for what makes a 'good' poem and what is 'good' to me might well be 'rubbish' to someone else.
For instance: I'm not that keen on a lot of 'performance poetry'. But I do have a liking for experimental 'sound poetry.' I can't stand Kipling either.
However, that doesn't mean I have to like every single thing you write, nor do I have to read it or hear it. I can make comments on your writing (if asked) but it will be according to the criteria I use in my won writing and you may or may not agree with me.
I don't think there's a single set of criteria for what makes a 'good' poem and what is 'good' to me might well be 'rubbish' to someone else.
For instance: I'm not that keen on a lot of 'performance poetry'. But I do have a liking for experimental 'sound poetry.' I can't stand Kipling either.
Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:58 pm
Good to se you're all getting involved. Great views by the way!
My wife and I were at both ends of the kitchen the other day when a really good song came on the radio. We both began singing it (in my case moaning it) and it made me wonder just how these musical hooks come about and if they also apply to words as in poetry.
Again I do not mean performance poetry where the voice can be so expressive and therefore carry the words more creatively, but simple words on the page.
Is that real poetry craft?
My wife and I were at both ends of the kitchen the other day when a really good song came on the radio. We both began singing it (in my case moaning it) and it made me wonder just how these musical hooks come about and if they also apply to words as in poetry.
Again I do not mean performance poetry where the voice can be so expressive and therefore carry the words more creatively, but simple words on the page.
Is that real poetry craft?
Tue, 1 Nov 2016 01:46 pm
(Good one about the `hookability` of combined sound and rhythm Graham...I bet you both sounded beautiful.)
This is a good thread.
The words of a poem already exist, It`s how we put them
together. (Synonym, synonym, synonym) the rhythm lies
in the passion, temper, or composure of the theme. It is
the poet`s job to combine them into an indissoluble and
perfect typographical whole...Ah! Perfection!...(All right
laugh...but what else are you going to aim at?)
Looking again at the lines I quoted from Julius Ceasar.
`Oh pardon me thou bleeding piece of earth
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers.`
Steven correctly points out that the ending on the second
line is feminine (and downbeat) but look at the way the
poet has used the weak ending of his word choice to give
such plosive disgusted force to the initial `butch` .This was obvious - I suppose - to the ears of the actor (and helpful also to Marlon Brando`s facial delivery in the film version)
(Rowan Atkinson`s difficulty with the sound of `p` has the
opposite opposite kind of comedic effect in Blackadder)
By the way, there is a good essay about rhyme by Chesterton called `The romance of Rhyme` on the internet somewhere.
Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:39 pm
Initially, I often write very quickly, getting down everything that comes from the initial inspiration (which could be an event, or an overheard phrase, or a turn of phrase that comes to me, or even a dream.)
But then the words have to find the right shape, and that can take a while, sometimes with a lot of trial and error.
I often syncopate my lines so that the endings are not all end-stopped, and can surprise the reader.
Some of my poems use collage and found material from all over the place (adverts, newspaper articles, etc...) and that becomes a matter of the most pleasing arrangement.
Then I have a few friends I show my poems to get some feedback.
But then the words have to find the right shape, and that can take a while, sometimes with a lot of trial and error.
I often syncopate my lines so that the endings are not all end-stopped, and can surprise the reader.
Some of my poems use collage and found material from all over the place (adverts, newspaper articles, etc...) and that becomes a matter of the most pleasing arrangement.
Then I have a few friends I show my poems to get some feedback.
Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:47 am
Steven is right about the `come from anywhereness` of
a poem`s initial inspiration, and very wise about speed
in `getting down` the initial inspiration. My own next step
is to do with what would the `inspiration` be useful for?
I personally have to be `aiming` at something in order to
get concentration.
On the subject of sound...I`m convinced that - when we
read a poem on the the page we are also - in some way -
listening to it... What does anyone else think?
a poem`s initial inspiration, and very wise about speed
in `getting down` the initial inspiration. My own next step
is to do with what would the `inspiration` be useful for?
I personally have to be `aiming` at something in order to
get concentration.
On the subject of sound...I`m convinced that - when we
read a poem on the the page we are also - in some way -
listening to it... What does anyone else think?
Fri, 4 Nov 2016 04:26 pm
With the exception of 'concrete poetry' where the impetus is largely visual, I'd agree with the listening thing. Reading the poem aloud has always been part of my editing process.
I'm not really sure what you mean by asking what the 'inspiration' would be useful for. Do you mean what type of poem it'll turn out to be?
I'm not really sure what you mean by asking what the 'inspiration' would be useful for. Do you mean what type of poem it'll turn out to be?
Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:26 am
Old age and the shock of Trump has slowed me
down on this this one. I was interested in what
Steven says about `concrete poetry` and about
`inspiration`
I would say that `concrete` is the sight helping
the ear by looking at the typographical form of
the words that the reader is` listening` to..such
as long spacing for long silences...scattereing
words for scattering of idea...etc; etc;...(Left
alignment and centering are themselves a
form of (traditional) concrete.
One rather `clever` use I saw it being used for
(I think on here...but I`ve forgotten who) was
as a form of hidden satire, where the words
were `humanly` formed into a shape which
`sexualised` what would normally be read as
an ordinarily `romantic` theme of the poem.
(This could be used by someone to satirise
other things.)
Perhaps the best way of explaining my own
personal `use` of inspiration would be by an
example:
I was `inspired` by the fact that when most of us
say `God knows` what we really mean to say is
`who knows` ( which sort of `secularises` it)
Viewing Darwin`s Shrewsbury statue `inspired`
me to compare this `religio-secular` meaning to
Richard Dawkin`s atempt to explain the possible
start of life as the scientifically positivist idea of
the (lucky?) appearance of a sort self-replicating
molecule many millions of years ago.
So I put together this poem.
SCIENT..ISM
(before the statue of the great St. Charles at Shrewsbury)
The professor
(here on earth)
Informs us that somewhere
God knows where)
Many millions of years ago
(God knows when)
A certain self-replicating molecule
(God knows what)
Came to be
(God knows how)
And fell down
(God knows why)
Into some soup of pre-historic slime
(God knows which)
And thus
All this crazy, biological world began.
Therefore
(continues the professor)
Now that we`ve been informed
Of this great, scientifically,
Secular start to everything,
There is no need at all for anyone
To keep believing
In that great starry universal fiction
We all call God.
.......................
....................
..............
(For that?)
............
..........
(The silly sod!)
(The original poem was centred and the `God knows` bits made bold)
Thu, 10 Nov 2016 04:25 pm
Actually by concrete poetry I mean something more like Ian Hamilton Finlay, certain Edwin Morgan poems, the Brazilian noigandes poets, dom Sylvester houedard's typestracts, and Bob Cobbing, but I like the idea of your poem's use of space and typography. Also look up Eugen Gomringer, Henri Chopin, and more up-to-date, the Scottish poet Stephen Nelson.
A 'pure' concrete poem uses words or letters without any link to a literary meaning; but a lot of poems combine visual and 'literary' (think of George Herbert's Angel Wings for instance, but I'm sure there are contemporary examples too.)
A 'pure' concrete poem uses words or letters without any link to a literary meaning; but a lot of poems combine visual and 'literary' (think of George Herbert's Angel Wings for instance, but I'm sure there are contemporary examples too.)
Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:17 pm
" . . . so many poems on this site would lift from average to splendid . . ." in who's opinion? Average or splendid to the writer . . . or the reader? Surely a question of taste . . . and the ambitions of the writer?
Sun, 13 Nov 2016 03:52 pm
Anthony,
Good to see you comment.
Regarding `concrete` poetry I`m sure two of your own would help the discussion
1...Biography http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp7F7tnIzwU
2...http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2013/12/20/a-christmas-poem-rewritten-by-corporate-killjoys/
The typographical `density` of one, plus the word, music,
and picturesqueness of the other would be well worth discussing.
The only thing capable of solving your `who`s opinion?` is
something akin to general agreement after long, long,
close reading and discussion and generally agreed reputational concurrence (and, unfortunately, by the time all this has happened the poet is usually dead)
Good to see you comment.
Regarding `concrete` poetry I`m sure two of your own would help the discussion
1...Biography http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp7F7tnIzwU
2...http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2013/12/20/a-christmas-poem-rewritten-by-corporate-killjoys/
The typographical `density` of one, plus the word, music,
and picturesqueness of the other would be well worth discussing.
The only thing capable of solving your `who`s opinion?` is
something akin to general agreement after long, long,
close reading and discussion and generally agreed reputational concurrence (and, unfortunately, by the time all this has happened the poet is usually dead)
Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:07 pm