Poetry - breaking the rules.

[peter]

When you went to see the Pogues live on stage, you were treated to a couple of hours [always assuming Shane McGowan wasn't too pissed to stand up] of the most wonderfull rollocking Irish music that sounded for all the world like seven or eight guys had just got to the corner stage in a Dublin bar and were jamming together for the first time ever. It was a beautifull loose sound that always sounded as fresh and improvised as the first time it had ever been performed.
The guys were able to pull of this feat, not because they had never been constrained by the rules of the music they played, but because they knew them so well, were so intimately in tune with those rules, that they could transcend them without the whole thing descending into the mess that would transpire, had they been lesser 'masters' of the art they conveyed.

Similarly in the world of painting, abandoning the forms of traditional figurative work and moving into the abstact is by far most sucessfully accomplished by those who have mastered the tecniques of drawing, painting and composition demanted by represantational work and taught within the framework of a formal art education. Rarely does a genius emerge who has not cut his teeth with a traditional training to support his venture into the more experimental side of the work.

In my oppinion, no less is this is true when one comes to consider poetry. Contrary to what many people believe, there is a structure of 'rules' [bad word - tecniques would be better] that is employed in order to give poetic works 'euphony' [a good sound], tecniques which have been developed over centuries and which I think should be thoroughly studied before one even begins to think about creating works of ones own. The tecniques of 'scanning' and 'rhyming schemes' can be utilised to analyse how given poems work their magic, and it is by absolute familiarity with these tecniques that the skill can be built to begin works of ones own. Failure to learn these 'rules' will like as not result in the production of 'doggerel' rather than peotry [though the line between the two can be thin and a matter of personal taste], and although one will not see it as such at the time of writting, a chance encounter with the work a few years later will soon expose it in all it's gory detail [Knowledge won by hard experience I hasten to add ]. {Doggerel is defined, by the way, as 'tecnically incompetant verse'}
I believe it is only when one is absolutely familiar with the 'rules', to the point where one could use them almost as second nature rather than with conciouss thought, that one is ready to embark on the very perilous venture known as 'free-verse'. Free-verse is poetry that does not follow the rules of poetry; it is the 'free-jazz' of poetry, poetry that marches to it's own drum - or indeed no drum at all. But never the less, as with the examples I gave above, free-verse only works when it rises above the constraints of the 'rules' upon which poetry is based and not when it is written without knowledge of them at all.

[michaelm]

When I was at school, one of the books I had to read for my literature class was '1914-1918 in Poetry'. It really opened my eyes to what poetry could be.

The writers of those poems ranged from bored soldiers trying to get their thoughts out, through those with a classical education to those who wanted to experiment outside of the rules of classical poetry.

I first learned of things like 'para rhymes' through reading these, where the rhyming is more akin to alliteration than traditional rhyming, and it makes for an almost uncomfortable read first time.

There is also ignoring of the rules of how poems should be organized, with no respect for separating into stanzas or even just writing one long poem with no organization.

Of course, these guys were not the first to write in this way, but it was a disparate group of men who had a common subject and many opinions and thoughts on it.

IMO poetry should not be constrained by rules. If it was, the world would be lacking in poetry from some literary giants who transcended 'the rules'.

[Vraith]

Well, in opposition to one of your points, peter, I'd say that never has genius emerged in any field BECAUSE of the rules.

I'd also say that those for those who transcend the rules, learning the rules was the easy part. No struggle involved, they just make sense. Only the people who will never actually BE masters have to master the rules.
[[which is not to say there aren't masters whose entire body of work lies within established rules. It is still possible, in the modern world, to compose a sonnet that is pure brilliance]].
It's a matter of sometimes the rules inspire...and other times of knowing when the rules/structure will aid/enhance/support the meaning/purpose and when they won't.

And not all "rules" are rules...many are just training techniques. Like learning to draw figures and fruit before leaping to "The Persistence of Memory." [[most, but not all, the master's find the techniques pretty easy too, compared to average folk...perhaps more important, along with the rules, they recognize the purpose and value of rules/structures BEFORE they know what they are/how to do them...very much analogous to Deutsch mention of theory-laden]]

And it isn't [of course] a simple matter...it's a variety of overlapping continua.

Not to mention that most of the rules aren't at all rule-like. They're more of a quick-sketch map. Little precision in the features and borders with lots of unexplored/unknown space both within the boundaries and without.

[wayfriend]

In music, you create a tension when you establish a melody and then you depart from that melody. There's what you hear, and what you expect, and the tug between them - stretching, easing, tightening, bouncing back. This creates some of the finest guitar solos ever.

I imagine poetry must be the same. Rules establish expectation; when you defy expectation, you create a tension that contributes to the experience.

You can't manage that tension well, use it positively, unless you've first mastered the expectation, it seems to me. Otherwise it's like random notes from an electric guitar.

[[Syl]]

The rules didn't derive from what made poetry good or bad. Rhyme and meter (and before that, alliteration and assonance) simply made it easier to remember. That was important when the most common transmission method was mouth to ear, but not so much these days.

That isn't to say that I don't somewhat share Robert Frost's sentiments that free verse is like 'playing tennis without a net.' If you can just say whatever you want, it's not really poetry, which is probably why I don't care for >90% of spoken word poetry. One should always pay attention to the element of structure—and surprise, theme, word choice, etc. I think sloppy poetry comes more from disregarding the work and the reader than from ignoring any kind of rules. Otherwise, the first several pages of any book of (western) poetry would be dedicated to invoking the muses.

[rdhopeca]

The rules didn't derive from what made poetry good or bad. Rhyme and meter (and before that, alliteration and assonance) simply made it easier to remember. That was important when the most common transmission method was mouth to ear, but not so much these days.

That isn't to say that I don't somewhat share Robert Frost's sentiments that free verse is like 'playing tennis without a net.' If you can just say whatever you want, it's not really poetry, which is probably why I don't care for >90% of spoken word poetry. One should always pay attention to the element of structure—and surprise, theme, word choice, etc. I think sloppy poetry comes more from disregarding the work and the reader than from ignoring any kind of rules. Otherwise, the first several pages of any book of (western) poetry would be dedicated to invoking the muses.

I agree. I have my share of free form poetry, but I do into it knowing that the free form is in response to the mood, or the idea, or the inspiration...in a way, it's a conversation, but you can include alliteration and other techniques to make it work rhythmically without meter...like this...the "form" is in the word choice and in the lines dictating abruptness or realization...

your eyes are blue
I didn't know until just now
last night
the shades of darkness
the depths of shadows
and I, looking away with a practiced smile

That being said, one of the "coolest" things I think in poetry is when you can establish meter and rhythm and then break it, but not break it, in terms of how you would speak it, like so...where the sentence breaks all over the line, but the rhythm is maintained...

But no, the child inside me died
When tragedy I faced
Alone, and Hunter, born of pain
Arises in my place.

Breaking the rules can be powerful, but you have to know what they are to determine the effect of said breakage.

[michaelm]

Not poetry, but music - I think Charlie Parker said it best:

"Master your instrument, master the music, and then forget all that shit and just play."

[Vraith]

there's definitely a dynamic at work.
But look: form FOLLOWS function.
How hard is it to learn the rules of a sonnet?
It takes like 5 minutes.
No one with even 1/2 a brain ever wrote a terrible sonnet
cuz they couldn't master the rules...
they write terrible sonnets cuz they have boring/trite ideas,
dull words, sloppy technique, lack of focus, or the idea doesn't
fit in that box...dozens of things.
But not cuz they can't make a sonnet.

People say all the time things like "you need a strong foundation."
And that's true. You need a ground, some support.
But you choose the foundation to hold what you are inspired to build.

And there are different ways of creating that support.
You could write a sestina or whatever...it has a defined structure.
But you can ALSO ignore that external frame...make something like a rope or a net...
The strength and structure is INTERNAL, woven and twisted and
braided so it holds ITSELF together...and if you do it well, you catch something.

[ussusimiel]

You can almost always tell when someone who writes poetry doesn't read it. That, IMO, is the study that's required to master the craft. It's not necessarily knowing exactly what a Shakespearean sonnet should look like, it's having read enough of them that you have absorbed the form and when you need it, it is there for you to use.

I have tried on a number of occasions to write a villanelle and not once has it turned out to be the right form for what I needed to say. It is equally important to be able to let go of a form when it is de-forming the necessary shape of the poem.

I agree that if you want to be a great poet you probably need to absorb a huge amount of the great poetic works, and if you want to write a poem just sit down and do it. When you find you can't get it quite the way you want it, you may quickly become ready to find out how others have managed it.

I can help anyone improve their poetry without them ever reading a poem, and I will always urge a new writer to read lots of poetry. Depending on the kind of poetry you want to write it is usually worth reading Ezra Pound's short piece that kicked off Imagism. Many of the things he said still make up Writing Poetry 101, and they are not agreed with at all by others who prefer experimental or language-based poetry.

Poetry today is a multitudinous thing: lyric, spoken-word, performance/slam, process, experimental, language, FLARF, conceptual. Not all of it is my cup of tea and much of it is, by many peoples' standards, not poetry at all. Yet it is all concerned with language and its possibilities.

That which was hidden worried them.
They asked that her speech be repeated.
Summer light bears a likeness to justice.
Then the light is supposing attention.
That section has a resemblance to light.
Is it a likeness of the justice chair?

u.

[rdhopeca]

I have tried on a number of occasions to write a villanelle and not once has it turned out to be the right form for what I needed to say. It is equally important to be able to let go of a form when it is de-forming the necessary shape of the poem.

Perhaps you are going about it the wrong way. Find something you want to say, that would benefit from rhythm and repetition, and would also benefit from starting and ending with the same thought, and then make it work within the villainelle. They are hard, but when done correctly, they definitely work. I just think you need the concept first rather than the form in some cases.

[sgt.null]

ussusimiel - I agree that one should be reading whatever poetry they can get ahold of. Ezra Pound, TS Eliot, Wallace Stevens, Thomas Lux, Vachel Lindsay, e.e. cummings are my favorites.

my favorite of my poems follows no structure that I know of.

Marx, Lenin
Lenin, Marx
good dog...

Stephen King said the secret to writing is to write. I have followed that. working out my style as I write and write and write. I can honestly say the early attempts were dreadful, but necessary. at some point in your writing your voice will find you and you will find your voice.

[peter]

How hard is it to learn the rules of a sonnet?
It takes like 5 minutes.
No one with even 1/2 a brain ever wrote a terrible sonnet
cuz they couldn't master the rules...
they write terrible sonnets cuz they have boring/trite ideas,
dull words, sloppy technique, lack of focus, or the idea doesn't
fit in that box...dozens of things.
But not cuz they can't make a sonnet.

Guilty as charged. I wrote a perfectly constructed sonnet [8,6, the cesura's the couplets, rhyming scemes etc] for my wife and had it framed. Now I have to look at the beast every day on the kitchen wall and it's badness makes my skin crawl [but I would never tell my wife {who quite possibly feels the same} who I still love to bits! ]

But I still maintain that the 1% genius of poetry will still only follow the 99% of it which is hard work - why should it be the one art form which bucks this almost universal trend. That the view is not widely agreed with I understand - there is something almost.... constricting about the idea that something as light and soaring as the best crafted poetry must be the product of hours of brain sweating toil on the nuts and bolts of the craft - but I believe it is so. No, a Byron cannot be created just from a framework of tecniques - but neither, I think, will one emerge without that framework [as pointed out far mor eloquently above] acting as the structure away from which to wander. The arts are professional enterprises, and proffessions have to be learned.

As an interesting exercise if I toss out the line "Belinda smiled and all the world was gay" can anyone tell me anything about it?

[lucimay]

I didn't learn "the rules" before writing.
that being said, I don't know how good I am at it
and I rarely call my pieces "poems" because that
would mean that I think of myself as a "poet" and
frankly, I've always thought it was up to a reader
to say whether what I've written was poetic or not.
I'm a writer. I write what I feel. I try to be as
articulate and economic as possible. those are my
rules.

I'm not too good at forms (sonnet, pantoum, villanelle, ect)
tho I occasionally try my hand at them because I like forms.

I read some poets (mary karr, Wallace stevens, anne sexton are
favorites) and I know about forms from reading some of the poets
I like and have taken a couple of classes but I couldn't really say
I've studied poetry or even writing beyond the generally required
English classes (because I was not an English major, I was a theater
major.)

interesting thread tho, I enjoy reading everyone's take on the work.

[Vraith]

[

But I still maintain that the 1% genius of poetry will still only follow the 99% of it which is hard work - why should it be the one art form which bucks this almost universal trend.

Because it doesn't buck the trend. None of the other art forms work that way.
Where do the rules and techniques even COME from?
They were a creative act by someone.
I mean, think of synecdoche...just a term/technique.
Do you think it's even slightly possible that the term existed PRIOR TO someone inventing and using it?
But you're mistaking where the perspiration really is.
The rules are EASY. The only hard part is that there are so many of them. And there are so many because artists keep doing new tricks...so folk have to rush in and label it with a definition, make it a rule to guide the young ones and common folk to understanding.
The traditional forms [most of them] are
pure simplicity...as easy as counting to ten.

As I said, there is a dynamic play between them.
But make no mistake: the idea/meaning is the Master.
It/you USE the rules/form as a tool to create/communicate a certain
thing. And a number of criteria are often used in order to select a form [one of those criteria is probably the expectations WF mentioned earlier]. Hopefully you choose the right one.
And background knowledge can be invaluable. Having more tools
in your belt may [or may not] be advantageous. May [or may not] be necessary.
But if you are perspiring to create [and most do], it isn't
the form/rules causing the sweat.
And if it IS, you've either chosen the wrong tool
OR you've made yourself the slave of the tool instead of the master.

There's real work involved in fitting the two things together, no doubt.
A thought/vision of true genius can be pulled down, polluted, weakened by having the wrong form...a mismatch/forcing of pieces.

But the mundane won't ever become true genius just because the form is perfection.

Lucimay mentioned writing before rules. And that's exactly how it happens.


There is relationship and tension and mutual reinforcement. But there is a definite order here. And it isn't on the side of the rules. Not for writing and grammar, not for poetry and rhyme-schemes, not for music and scales, not for artist and sketching.

[sgt.null]

“Sol through white curtains shot a timorous ray ,

And oped those eyes that must eclipse the day."

[rdhopeca]

[

But I still maintain that the 1% genius of poetry will still only follow the 99% of it which is hard work - why should it be the one art form which bucks this almost universal trend.

Because it doesn't buck the trend. None of the other art forms work that way.
Where do the rules and techniques even COME from?
They were a creative act by someone.
I mean, think of synecdoche...just a term/technique.
Do you think it's even slightly possible that the term existed PRIOR TO someone inventing and using it?
But you're mistaking where the perspiration really is.
The rules are EASY. The only hard part is that there are so many of them. And there are so many because artists keep doing new tricks...so folk have to rush in and label it with a definition, make it a rule to guide the young ones and common folk to understanding.
The traditional forms [most of them] are
pure simplicity...as easy as counting to ten.

As I said, there is a dynamic play between them.
But make no mistake: the idea/meaning is the Master.
It/you USE the rules/form as a tool to create/communicate a certain
thing. And a number of criteria are often used in order to select a form [one of those criteria is probably the expectations WF mentioned earlier]. Hopefully you choose the right one.
And background knowledge can be invaluable. Having more tools
in your belt may [or may not] be advantageous. May [or may not] be necessary.
But if you are perspiring to create [and most do], it isn't
the form/rules causing the sweat.
And if it IS, you've either chosen the wrong tool
OR you've made yourself the slave of the tool instead of the master.

There's real work involved in fitting the two things together, no doubt.
A thought/vision of true genius can be pulled down, polluted, weakened by having the wrong form...a mismatch/forcing of pieces.

But the mundane won't ever become true genius just because the form is perfection.

Lucimay mentioned writing before rules. And that's exactly how it happens.


There is relationship and tension and mutual reinforcement. But there is a definite order here. And it isn't on the side of the rules. Not for writing and grammar, not for poetry and rhyme-schemes, not for music and scales, not for artist and sketching.

I'll comment more when I get home, but I firmly believe that the choice of form helps with word choice and impact. If you come to the last portion of a stanza in iambic pentameter with an alternate line rhyme scheme, that limits word choice....it forces you to think about what you want to be saying when you come to key points in the piece so you can say exactly what you want when you get there with the power you want to have meaning wise. I ended a line in a piece with the word "capitulate" and it took a lot of thought to get there and have that word work exactly as expected meaning, rhyme, and meter wise.

[[Syl]]

I agree that form can really add something to a poem. For instance, I had a poem called "Insecticide" (It's published; I can do that ) that I put up here several years ago (actually wrote it in '96, published in '09). A few years ago I decided to revisit it. Seeing that it had about 13 lines and something of a turn at the end, I realized it was actually a very strange sonnet. I reworked it into that form, and it worked. For me and the publication, anyway. The KW readership disagreed.

[rdhopeca]

Another key aspect to form (or perhaps more accurately, meter) is the readability of the work. I, at least, even notice it in children's' books. My favorite books to read to my kids are the ones written in a predictable meter. They make reading aloud easier, and entering a state of unconscious reading when reading to one self easier, IMO. Free form poetry tends to not be as easily readable (again, I consider it more akin to a conversation). It has its place and usage but one has to understand what it will do to readability and what it does to a listener when spoken aloud.

Even when creating my own forms of poetry I always look for a consistent meter in my lines (is it 4 beats, 4 beats, 5 beats?) to help with flow and rhythm.

There's an animal strike at the zoo, it's true
The headlines are telling it all.
The animals quit! That's it! We're through!
Say all critters from biggest to small.

Rolls right off the tongue due to its meter and rhythm. To me, anyway.

[ussusimiel]

"Belinda smiled and all the world was gay"

Regular iambic pentameter. Not a hard rhythm to write in, but one I find quickly becomes boring and repetitive if it's too regular. Personally, I find that the pentameter line generally is too long for the way I write, and the odd time I do attempt a sonnet-like poem I am always surprised by how much you can pack into 14 lines of pentameter.

A couple of other things about the line (the 'Net tells me it's Pope, BTW ), there are lots of Ls. Liquids will add smoothness to the flow of the line (which fits the context of the sea in the previous line).

Smooth flow the waves, the zephyrs gently play,
Belinda smiled, and all the world was gay.

There is also a nice reversal of letters and half-sound in the phrase 'Belinda smiled. This is a technique that Dylan Thomas used a lot, e.g. 'This day winding down now'. It adds extra textual richness to a line but can be overdone, thus making a line entangled and heavy in its own reference.

u.

[Vraith]

I'm not denying...in fact I agree with...much that is being said about the uses and positive benefits of various techniques/forms.

It's the status/ordering/idea/significance/necessity of mastery of those things that I find troublesome.

Take rhyme: it is useful, it can enhance. But it isn't hard. And it doesn't require some special effort to master. Most children will discover and play with it all by themselves, spontaneously. But some languages don't even really think or care about rhyme in poetry, for various reasons. Even in those, though, kids learning like to play with things that sound alike.
Consonance, alliteration, assonance, all just variations on the theme.
When there is sweat involved in choosing, it isn't because of the rule...there are probably dozens of ways to follow any rule at any given moment...the sweat/effort is in the arena/tension BETWEEN the technique and the idea.
[[and if you make/find the right choice, that energy is viscerally sensed by the reader.]]
English is actually relatively rhyme-poor, which has been a good thing...because it has led to the invention/recognition of various kinds of near-rhymes.
But let's also tell the truth about it:
Rhyme is an absolute threat to an otherwise good or great poem. Not just by "forcing" choices, or settling on bad choices, to fit the form, but physically disruptive.
Read aloud, or have someone read aloud, a poem with lots of rhymes. Unless the person is a knowledgeable and practiced reader and thoroughly understands the MEANING, you end up with a sing-song chant, abrupt breaks, stilted performance, damaged meaning. Because the rhyme over-rules the sense.

Anyone with a poetic bent, but no "learnin'" will almost certainly, if they stick with writing and care about its quality, self-discover new rules/tools/techniques nearly every time they try to write.
One of the biggest advantages [there are many advantages] to great familiarity is simply so you don't do what has already been done. [Another is inspiration: "that's a great poem, but man the idea is just SO WRONG" and/or "Nice, but how 'bout/what if/there's also...."]

Some folk might think this is analogous to chicken/egg...
But I don't think it is.
I think it is LIFE/egg. One definitely came first, and one is definitely more important, one creates/makes possible the other. And the one that comes first isn't the rules or techniques.
And when we teach/pretend otherwise [which is one of the primary reasons this bugs me] we kill off poets.
[[and it's not just the arts...our techniques, definitions and demands in teaching math kills off mathematicians, too]].
Write first...or you change a joy and play into a chore and exercise.
The rules/techniques don't DEFINE poetry, they REFINE it.
Write first...cuz the blues didn't arise from someone inserting a flat5, the flat5 made the blues cuz someone was giving voice to pain.
Write first...because the hammer doesn't use the sculptor.