Poetry - Proper Writing Styles and Formats
-
I am going to combine the two threads into one. But instead of copying everything I will only repost the important points.
Devil1976:
I've noticed that there're quite a few styles/format (?) for writing a proper poem... Must we follow such styles to make our poems acceptable and meaningful..? Would we be like writing without even knowing what we're writing if we don't...?
I also remember DP telling me before that my poems are too abstract... I somehow agree with him on that, but I certainly like my poems to be more abstract than otherwise.. Is it a bad thing?
Because I'm actually kinda lazy if not at times stubborn.. But I do really wish to know if there're so much more to poetry-writing..? And if they're really necessary to make poems meaningful...?
Thanks in advance for any constructive comments... -
DeadPoet:
My dear friend,
I will try to post some articles regarding your questions if I can find the time. Actually I have already done that in the past but I have not kept them updated.
For a start I strongly recommend you to read the following three books, especially The PoetÂ’s Companion because it is really helpful for beginners like us. (DonÂ’t be lazy okay)
And if you are into serious reading Best Words, Best Order is a good buy. You can find the first edition in the library but you need to order the second edition from US.
1) Western Wind, An Introduction to Poetry, Fourth Edition, by John Frederick Nims & David Mason
2) The PoetÂ’s Companion, A Guide to the Pleasures of Writing Poetry by Kim Addonizio & Dorianne Laux
3) Best Words, Best Order, Essays on Poetry, Second Edition, by Stephen Dobyns
But first let me briefly answer your questions,
Must we follow such styles to make our poems acceptable and meaningful..?
No. But if you are writing a sonnet, then of course you have to follow the structure of a sonnet. (By the way there are few kind of sonnets) Occasionally established poets do experiment with writing sonnets in different styles and successfully pulled it off.
In my opinion, your poem needs to mean something to you. (If not, you shouldnÂ’t even write it in the first place) Then, your task, as a poet is to fine-tune it so that it will mean something to your readers. Ideally, both your readers and you should have the same interpretation, but again, that is not always true because we have to take your readersÂ’ background into consideration for example their personal experiences, cultures, educational level, etc.
That is also one of the reasons why some poets such as William Wordsworth, Sharon Olds, and Gilbert Koh prefer not to use words that are too difficult. (You don't need a degree to understand their poems) Instead, they focus on other poetry-writing tools such as image, sounds, tone, etc.
Would we be like writing without even knowing what we're writing if we don't...?
I am not sure what you meant by this question. Are you referring to flow-writing? Unless you are in a trance you should know what you are writing right? Having say that most poets started off with an image, a phrase, etc without knowing how the poem will end. That is the exciting part. Are you referring to that?
I also remember DP telling me before that my poems are too abstract... I somehow agree with him on that, but I certainly like my poems to be more abstract than otherwise.. Is it a bad thing?
No. It is not 100% a bad thing. The trick is to have a good balance between abstract terms and concrete images. The main problem with abstracts is they do not involve your senses. You canÂ’t touch, smell, hear, etc. them. Too many of them and youÂ’ll have a boring piece. Same with concrete images, too many of them in a poem (especially the long one) and your brain will be overload.
(And you are right, your poems are too abstract. But if you are happy with them who care what other think right? It is your poems.)
But I do really wish to know if there're so much more to poetry-writing..?
More than you can imagine my friend. Check out those books.
And if they're really necessary to make poems meaningful...?
Refer to my earlier answer.
LetÂ’s put it this way. Before you start writing, you need to ask yourself these two questions
1) What do you want to achieve with your poems?
2) Who are your readers?
With them in mind, you decide your path.
Thanks in advance for any constructive comments...
You are most welcome. -
peebrain:
Well... I've been known to write a couple of sonnets and villanelles when I want to give my poems a little structure or discipline.
Think of forms as a base to set the tone of the poem. For instance, sonnets tend to lend an old fogey sheen to the piece, and hence gives the poem more weight. And if you write in strict iambic pentameter and rhyme schemes, you'll realize that although it's much harder to write, the payoff is infinitely more rewarding.
I like free verse -- but I think it's very prone to abuse. And because there's no rules to it, people tend to forget to apply common literary techniques in their writing -- simple things like repetition, alliteration, allusion and metaphor are poetic tools that should be used in any form of poetry.
Personally, for anyone to call themselves a poet, they must have a working knowledge of the most common forms -- Sonnet, tercets, haiku, villanelle -- even though they do not have to specialize in any.
This is what differentiates a poet from someone who throws words around.
I don't prescribe reading "how-to" books, really. Instead, just read more poetry from the various ages.
For older poems, read Donne, Shakespeare, Bacon, Byron and Dickinson for a feel of what sonnets and tercets are like.
For more contemporary poems, Yeats, Hughes, Sexton, Plath, cummings, Riche, Dylan are pretty good.
Carol Joyce Oats, Sophie Hannah, Ted Kooser, Sharon Olds are poets that gives traditional forms the modern treatment. -
expiringpoet:
Hi DP,
very insightful advise...but i'm having a problem with the situation you're describing above i.e. how poems starts off with an image and the poet not knowing how it'll end. This is basically how i write too..and while its true that its exciting, i find it to be a double edged sword as well becos the message behind the poem may run off course - becos there is no "set" structure for how the message should run. I'm not sure now if its good practise to write down what i want to say in the 1st stanza, 2nd ..and so forth - to ensure that the message will be tighter. Again, i wonder if by doing this, the creative process will become stilted and constrained by the form. Well, this is typical me - conflicted as usual.
Would like to hear yr or anyone else's advise on this...tks.. -
DeadPoet:
i'm having a problem with the situation you're describing above i.e. how poems starts off with an image and the poet not knowing how it'll end. This is basically how i write too..and while its true that its exciting, i find it to be a double edged sword as well becos the message behind the poem may run off course - becos there is no "set" structure for how the message should run.
I know this may sound silly but if it runs off course, let it runs, let it lead the way. You can always come back to it later. Do not force the message into your poem. Let the poem decides your message. In my opinion, if the end product is not your original message, you are not ready to tackle it yet.
I'm not sure now if its good practise to write down what i want to say in the 1st stanza, 2nd ..and so forth - to ensure that the message will be tighter.
ThatÂ’s entirely up to you my friend. If you are comfortable with writing down what you want to say and allocate them according to different stanzas, so be it. But it doesnÂ’t work for me, most of the time I donÂ’t even know how many stanzas my poem will have.
I am not too sure what you meant by “to ensure that the message will be tighter.” Do you mean the poem will be tighter?
Again, i wonder if by doing this, the creative process will become stilted and constrained by the form.
I think peebrain has answered your question regarding this. -
dsnake1:
To write poetry, i think one must not forget the roots.
By this i am refering to the traditional forms of poetry : the sonnet, ballad, haiku etc. These forms are structured, they have a certain number of lines and rhyme schemes.
Why write traditional poetry? Because it is still relevant today, it builds discipline into your writing, it will improve your craft.
Contemporary poetry is often associated with free verse. People believe you can do anything with free verse. Which is true to an extent because it allows you to do nearly anything with the language. But there are still rules in free verse ( i like to call it open form poetry). You don't restrict the lines, or shape . You may not notice it, but if you write in free verse, you start to impose rules on your poem and yourself.
The trick to writing good poetry is to read good poetry. Read the traditional poets and the comtemporary ones. The selection by peebrain is very good. -
peebrain:
Originally posted by expiringpoet:
Expiringpoet,
becos there is no "set" structure for how the message should run. I'm not sure now if its good practise to write down what i want to say in the 1st stanza, 2nd ..and so forth - to ensure that the message will be tighter. Again, i wonder if by doing this, the creative process will become stilted and constrained by the form. Well, this is typical me - conflicted as usual.
would like to hear yr
or anyone else's advise on this...tks.. [/b]
You have raised very pertinent questions that I must try to addresss to the best of my ability.
Creativity is not about letting loose the wild horses -- but how you rein them in to do your bidding.
Deadpoet and Dsnake mentioned how common it is for a poet to write about a specific image in mind, and not knowing how the rest of the poem will take shape.
I beg to differ.
It is true that a lot of my poems have their origins in a specific idea in mind -- say, writer's block or solitude or existential angst -- and it usually starts with one verse, for instance, "In dreaming I take my waking slow"
This verse is the start of the poet's examination of the human condition. From there, I think of how to link this insular line to a greater whole of sorts -- how to give the poem meaning using this verse as a trigger.
I could use the line, "In dreaming I take my waking slow" to illuminate the attractions of dreaming -- how the fantastical world could be more spiritually illuminating than our harsh reality.
As for traditional forms: they do not stifle creativity -- instead they force you to break your thoughts into coherent slices, to be assembled and appreciated by the reader.
And as a modern poet, part of the challenge is to use these traditional devices as creatively as you can, within the boundaries of structure and reason.
I've written a villanelle to explain what I mean.
When I wrote this poem, I had only one image -- of two opposing worlds, one in dreaming, and one in waking.
In Dreams We Break (A Villanelle)
In dreams we break, and are torn asunder,
shunned while velvet nights shudder and rage,
so we wake to escape, our spirits bolder.
Cahiers, written by a nameless author,
though modest, defile with each stained page,
in dreams we break, and are torn asunder.
Exuent a fear impossible to master,
a dark light prances and torments the stage,
while we wake to escape, our spirits older.
Cursed is this contract, to place an actor
confessing her lines, even moved to persuade
as we dream and break, and are torn asunder.
A minstrel sings of Tristan and Isolde,
lovers crossed and doomed by curious fate,
unlike them we wake and escape, our spirits lighter.
Jostled 'tween two worlds, yet courage is steered
by checks and balances, a bittersweet adage:
although in dreams we break, and are torn asunder,
we shall wake to escape, our spirits bolder.
That's how a villanelle is usually constructed -- you start with a couplet ("In dreams we break, and are torn asunder/ So we wake to escape, our spirits bolder") and then insert a tertiary line to form a tercet.
Each line of the couplet is repeated in an alternating fashion, and the challenge lies in the poet's ability to use fitting rhymes and images to SUPPORT the precis of the poem.
That's why I've stuck to imagery associated with Theater and history -- actors, Tristan and Isolde,... etc. In order to tie in with the beauty of fiction inherent in dreaming. It's tempting to cook up rubbish rhymes so as to get the stanza over and done with -- but that's hardly the point of writing poetry.
I've also deviated from the standard villanelle -- I didn't stick strictly to the repetition of couplet -- along the way, I made slight changes to the couplet to reinforce my message.
Which is why the poem begins with:In dreams we wake and are torn asunder,
and ends up like this:
So we wake to escape our spirits bolder,although in dreams we break, and are torn asunder,
You'll see that Sylvia Plath, Elizabeth Bishop, Dyland and Sophie Hannah make creative adjustments to traditional forms. Use them to your advantage -- they're your tools!
we shall wake to escape, our spirits bolder.
Also, bear in mind I had no idea how I was going to finish the poem, or even come up with three other stanzas. But this is where creativity will come to save you, and discipline will force you to reexamine your writing, and make every word count. -
Devil1976:
Originally posted by DeadPoet:
My dear friend,
I will try to post some articles regarding your questions if I can find the time. Actually I have already done that in the past but I have not kept them updated.
For a start I strongly recommend you to read the following three books, especially The PoetÂ’s Companion because it is really helpful for beginners like us. (DonÂ’t be lazy okay)
How you know I'm the lazy type already...??
And if you are into serious reading Best Words, Best Order is a good buy. You can find the first edition in the library but you need to order the second edition from US.
1) Western Wind, An Introduction to Poetry, Fourth Edition, by John Frederick Nims & David Mason
2) The PoetÂ’s Companion, A Guide to the Pleasures of Writing Poetry by Kim Addonizio & Dorianne Laux
3) Best Words, Best Order, Essays on Poetry, Second Edition, by Stephen Dobyns
Wah... So many books... Sometimes it's not just that I'm lazy lah... I've really got too many 'commitments' strangling my poor life... "
But first let me briefly answer your questions,
Would we be like writing without even knowing what we're writing if we don't...?
I am not sure what you meant by this question. Are you referring to flow-writing? Unless you are in a trance you should know what you are writing right? Having say that most poets started off with an image, a phrase, etc without knowing how the poem will end. That is the exciting part. Are you referring to that?
What I meant was... Could we be just uttering some rubbish, thinking that it's a poem when it's actually not..
I also remember DP telling me before that my poems are too abstract... I somehow agree with him on that, but I certainly like my poems to be more abstract than otherwise.. Is it a bad thing?
No. It is not 100% a bad thing. The trick is to have a good balance between abstract terms and concrete images. The main problem with abstracts is they do not involve your senses. You canÂ’t touch, smell, hear, etc. them. Too many of them and youÂ’ll have a boring piece. Same with concrete images, too many of them in a poem (especially the long one) and your brain will be overload.
(And you are right, your poems are too abstract. But if you are happy with them who care what other think right? It is your poems.)
YEAH. WHAT CARES WHAT THEY THINK SO LONG AS I'M HAPPY??
But the deal really is that I do wish at least what I'm writing are poems...?
LetÂ’s put it this way. Before you start writing, you need to ask yourself these two questions
1) What do you want to achieve with your poems?
2) Who are your readers?
With them in mind, you decide your path.
1. I often wish to stimulate and provoke some thinkings in people who can understand what I'm writing about...
2. My readers are those who can understand what I'm saying. I often do not wish to clearly deliver and 'mouth-feed' the readers as typical of most poems... I like to provoke thoughts.. And make them think hard to look out for the understandings of hidden meanings... Sometimes when it's about just pure 'release' of my own feelings and burst of thoughts, I also try to make them masked... -
DeadPoet:
1. That's good. But are you sure you've achieved it?Originally posted by Devil1976:1. I often wish to stimulate and provoke some thinkings in people who can understand what I'm writing about...
2. My readers are those who can understand what I'm saying. I often do not wish to clearly deliver and 'mouth-feed' the readers as typical of most poems... I like to provoke thoughts.. And make them think hard to look out for the understandings of hidden meanings... Sometimes when it's about just pure 'release' of my own feelings and burst of thoughts, I also try to make them masked...
2. That's good too. But ask youself what have you done to your poem in order to achieve that i.e. "provoke thoughts.. And make them think hard to look out for the understandings of hidden meanings"? -
peebrain:
In response to, "This is what differentiates a poet from someone who throws words around", you said:
I've always believed that if a general remark is personally felt, then it probably isn't too far from the truth.Originally posted by Devil1976:Sounds like me...??
Think about it.
And think about whether the things you write contain the various elements:
1. Structure
2. Semantics
3. Sound, meter and rhyme
4. Imagery
5. Literary allusions (metaphors, similes etc)
6. Comparisons
7. Rhetoric
8. And many more.
You don't have to purposely include these elements in your writing, but if you're an instinctive poet, these elements will be present in the poem in one form or the other.
And someone who's adept at scansion will pick them out -- this is what differentiates a poem from a bunch of words rudely cobbled together.
This is the reason why poetry is an art form, and not merely a pass-time.
And please, don't write off something as "cheem" simply because the writing is structured in a way different from your natural speech. It smacks of condescension, truth be said. -
DeadPoet:
To add on peebrainÂ’s comment,
I agree with her that for a poem to work or to be called a poem at all you need to include in your writing some of the elements mentioned above. However for beginners like me, for a start, you can choose to focus on a couple of them such as imagery and metaphors. As you progress, feel free to explore the other areas.
Regarding scansion, it is not an easy technique to master and IMO the toughest of all. Again my suggestion is go ahead and read about scansion but for the time being put it aside first. Start with the basic stuff like line breaks, imagery, etc. Get used to them; keep practicing till theyÂ’ve became part of your writing style. And when you think you are ready, proceed to the next level.
And slightly different view from peebrain, I think poetry is both an art form and a pass-time, they co-exist. -
expiringpoet:
I guess sometimes when singaporeans say this, it means that we dont understand the meaning behind the words, esp if the words are not in our standard lexicon. Must admit, i'm sometimes guilty of this too.Originally posted by peebrain:And please, don't write off something as "cheem" simply because the writing is structured in a way different from your natural speech. It smacks of condescension, truth be said.
peebrain - i understand what you're saying on the form and structure...am inspired by ur words about how the structure and form elavates the written word. I'm also trying to understand how one can detract from the standard form and still be said to be following the structure. Example i have is the haiku, which is supposed to be 17 syllables (?) and in stanzas of 5,7,5, if i remember correctly. But i also noticed that writers take liberties with the form, so is it still considered a haiku?
Again, when i think about the form, i get super stressed! Anyway, tks for yr advise.
DP - tks for yr encouragement dude. I always assured after i read yr comments. And i think its true that it should be a gradual thing, mastery of poetry. Sometimes i have the same concern as devil even when i'm writing free verse - that is, would people think what i'm writing is poetry or is it pure rubbish? i guess writing free verse always seems to be the easy way out for me. But on a deeper level, i tend to think also that as long as the words are heart-felt and beatiful, no matter the structure - that's poetry in its simplest form. -
Bluesky_Liz:
What an insightful discussion! Sorry I've been just lurking.
In any art form, if you want to improve and perfect your craft, it certainly takes work. Just like anyone can dance or sing for fun or only among friends, but if you really want to go out there and put it in front of people, then you have to practice and improve, and try new things to see what works. IMHO.
I haven't been able to write anything in form, I'm just starting to learn how to scan. But I'm just terribly slow. Then, someday I'm gonna try writing in form. I think poetry in form is incredibly elegant and beautiful, if done well.
I'll just add my 2c's with regards to poetry instruction books -- they might not teach you all there is about writing poetry; they are certainly not school english text books, but they will give you some things to think about and suggest ways to improve, and help you to learn how to appreciate poetry of all flavors and the tools used in writing one.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everyone. 
-
peebrain:
Originally posted by expiringpoet:
Hmm how do I explain this?
peebrain - i understand what you're saying on the form and structure...am inspired by ur words about how the structure and form elavates the written word. I'm also trying to understand how one can detract from the standard form and still be said to be following the structure. Example i have is the haiku, which is supposed to be 17 syllables (?) and in stanzas of 5,7,5, if i remember correctly. But i also noticed that writers take liberties with the form, so is it still considered a haiku?
Again, when i think about the form, i get super stressed! Anyway, tks for yr advise.
Deviations to the form usually means [b]tweaking the standard requirements to enhance your message.
For instance, the sonnet. Typically, it has the most rigid structure -- abab, cdcd, efef, gg (that's Shakespearean, I think) in iambic meter -- and if you read Bacon and Shakespeare, the trend is to make each verse complete on its own.
Very seldom you see the use of enjambement (run-on lines) in sonnets. However, poets like Sophie Hannah use enjambement to great effect -- and still keeps very strictly to the rhyme scheme.
As for the haiku question -- are you sure the writers weren't writing senryu instead?
Because haiku is always 5,7,5 -- as it is a style originating from Japan, and the rhythm created from the 5,7,5 structure is the reason why haikus have a beautiful tone and cadence.
Unless of course, the extra syllable is meant to be omitted when read out aloud. Do you happen to have the example in question? -
DeadPoet:
Please correct me if I am mistaken but I thought senryu is similar in form to the haiku?Originally posted by peebrain:As for the haiku question -- are you sure the writers weren't writing senryu instead?
From what I understand the main between haiku and senryu is that senryu is concern with human condition rather than nature and are often humorous or even erotic in nature.
-
peebrain:
You're right -- the senryu is similar in construction, but I've found that writers of senyru are more flexible in terms of the number of syllables they use. There's also a difference in tone. Senryus typically stick to 17 syllables or less, whereas haiku seem to be more rigid.
There's also the tanka, i think, that has 31 syllables? hmm. -
DeadPoet:
One good example is John MiltonÂ’s When I consider how my light is spent and for contemporary poet, Tony HarrisonÂ’s Marked with D. He defiles convention by having sixteen rather than fourteen lines. Very interesting.Originally posted by peebrain:Very seldom you see the use of enjambement (run-on lines) in sonnets. However, poets like Sophie Hannah use enjambement to great effect -- and still keeps very strictly to the rhyme scheme.
By the way Jee Leong writes excellent sonnets too. -
dsnake1:
chu chi
=====
rats in dark tunnels
glares at metal locusts
in the warm blue sky
a swarm of bombers wing in
dropping napalm on ghosts.
how's my tanka?
ok, ok i know it's not supposed to rhyme. -
peebrain:
Originally posted by dsnake1:
Hmm. You'll have to explain to me the logic behind it, because the images don't seem to link.
[b]chu chi
=====
rats in dark tunnels
glares at metal locusts
in the warm blue sky
a swarm of bombers wing in
dropping napalm on ghosts.
how's my tanka?
ok, ok i know it's not supposed to rhyme.[/b]
(I have also the world's most logical mind, and poems, for me at least, no matter how rife with metaphors and allusions, must make sense somehow -- forgive me if I am harsh)
So my question is... if the rats are in dark tunnels, how do they see the "metal locusts"? (I like this image, btw). What roles do these rats play? If you're alluding to their possession of shelter as opposed to the people left defenceless against napalm, you'll probably have to be more precise. Not in terms of representation, but in terms of making the image work.
And I also feel that the noun "bombers" clash with the wonderfully imageric "metal locusts" and "napalm on ghosts" because... it's too literal.
(This is also the reason why I don't fancy haikus in general. oops) -
expiringpoet:
tks for the clarification...but i dont have an example at hand. Actually i've been reading haikus on and off while surfing and this is what i noticed re. the syllables not exactly conforming to the standard form of the 5,7,5.Originally posted by peebrain:Do you happen to have the example in question?
And, yes, i'm sure they were haikus cos the subject matters are mostly on nature, altho there are american haikus that deal with non-nature type of subjects. I'll look around again and see if i can come up with any to share here.
I like the poem. Perhaps i'm not as detailed as PB is when i read a poem, but i do like the mood and feel and vivid imagery of the whole thing.Originally posted by peebrain:So my question is... if the rats are in dark tunnels, how do they see the "metal locusts"? (I like this image, btw). What roles do these rats play?
(This is also the reason why I don't fancy haikus in general. oops)
PB, perhaps the rats are looking at the metal locusts thru some holes in the ground...
I also feel the mention of the rats are good in that it makes the reader immediately think of a scene which is dirty, desperate and dark.
I agree on the haiku thingy. Not enuf space to make the imagery very clear - again, a case of constraints of form over ideas!
-
Bluesky_Liz:
I found this haiku site. It has some very interesting articles about Haiku and its related forms.
http://www.ahapoetry.com/haiku.htm -
dsnake1:
expiringpoet,
glad you like the tanka. only started writing this form recently.
because of its short length, i guess people have different interpretations of the images.
the form suits me fine, i am a lazy writer.Originally posted by peebrain:
Oops! so the tanka didn't work too well!
Hmm. You'll have to explain to me the logic behind it, because the images don't seem to link.
(I have also the world's most logical mind, and poems, for me at least, no matter how rife with metaphors and allusions, must make sense somehow -- forgive me if I am harsh)
So my question is... if the rats are in dark tunnels, how do they see the "metal locusts"? (I like this image, btw). What roles do these rats play? If you're alluding to their possession of shelter as opposed to the people left defenceless against napalm, you'll probably have to be more precise. Not in terms of representation, but in terms of making the image work.
And I also feel that the noun "bombers" clash with the wonderfully imageric "metal locusts" and "napalm on ghosts" because... it's too literal.
peebrain, it's all right, i welcome the feedback.
Maybe those who read on wars may see the allusions more clearly. Chu Chi is a place in the former South Vietnam famous for its tunnels dug by the guerrilla armies fighting against the Americans in the Vietnam War. The rats allude to the Vietcong hiding in those tunnel complexes. Metal locusts refer to american air power. The VC are like ghosts because they are very elusive. At one time Chu Chi was one of the most bombed areas on earth.
Hope this little history lesson helps in the imaging.
>>I have also the world's most logical mind. heheh, i like that. -
peebrain:
Well... this question is in the same vein of "I've a camera, I've taken photograhs, so I'm a photographer" as well as "I've written stuff, so that makes me a writer".Originally posted by Hyperion13:I got one question. If I've written a few poems, does that make me a poet?
In my experience, writing poems does not a poet make. I've written essays and stories and articles for almost ten years, and it is only in recent years that I could honestly say I'm a writer, and I write for love and for survival.
When one claims to be a writer/photographer/poet, others will naturally assume that you have the necessary skill sets and toolkits to qualify as one. That includes a knowledge of forms, styles, print requirements, editing skills, critical review that is beyond pedestrian.
If you think you have the above, feel free to call yourself a poet. But before you do this, ask yourself the following:
1. Can my work withstand critical scrutiny? Is it worthy of analysis?
2. Have you made clear your emotions, your reactions in the piece? Is it clearly communicated to the target audience? A poet can be indifferent, but clarity of expression is key.
3. Why did I choose a particular word in the poem? Why have I chosen that voice? Where is its significance? Why are you moved to record to scene and structure the resulting work as such?
4. Does my work have depth? Does it offer room for interpretation, however vastly different from your own? Is there an exchange between the poet and reader?
5. Will I have the courage to revise, draft after draft, a written piece that doesn't work?
6. Most importantly -- do you love the sound of words tumbling from your tongue, the tinkling rhythms created as a result? Can you rip apart your feelings into base factors, reconstruct them into a unique reality that no other can emulate? Could you then use the sparest words to encapsulate the crux of your experience?
Wordsworth once said, "Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility." I'll go on to say that a poet derives his inspiration from the anguish and exuberance of living, the examination of the human condition.
Writing is a skill driven by motivation, and refined by critical thought. A poet's job is more excruciating by far, because he distill thoughts and emotions into an eloquent frame supported only by words so precise in their arrangement, that any substitute will be for the poorer.
I guess, at the end of this tedious exposition, my point is -- so long as you can justify your position and stance upon your poem is written, so long as others can glean visceral value from your words, your clarity and ambuguity in tandem, feel free to call yourself a poet.
Wait, you wouldn't have to. Others will certainly refer to you as one. -
DeadPoet:
This is from my blog. I hope it will answer your question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not really given it any serious thoughts until recently. But frankly, how do you distinguish between poetry and prose? Take the following piece for example,
When lives are at stake,
would you risk
not reporting it?
If you see anything
or anyone suspicious,
inform our staff
or call 999.
And donÂ’t leave
your belongings unattended.
We all have a part to play
in keeping Singapore
Safe.
Do you consider it a poem? It is actually a copy of the notice put up at various MRT stations to remind commuters to stay alert. I chopped it up and arranged it to look like a poem. Okay, okay, this is not really a good example.
But what about this?
And then comes Spring.
The sun is bright,
the water sparkles,
and the lobsters are active again,
swimming about, eating
like kings, and vying
for a place in your
Butter-browned top-sliced
frankfurter bun.
Would you categorize it as poetry? Better than the previous one right? In fact it is a passage taken from one of the articles in “It must’ve been something I ate” by Jeffrey Steingarten. Again, I’ve chopped it up and try to pass it off as a poem.
Basically, there are two things I look out for in a piece of writing before I decide whether it is a poetry or prose. Firstly is the existence of poetic devices such as meter, rhyme, imagery, metaphor, compression, etc. Secondly is its overall effect on me. I need to be delighted, to be surprised, and if you could stun me with it, the better; I will not hesitate to give you an A Plus.
To quote Emily Dicknson,
“If I read a book [and] it makes my whole body so cold no fire ever can warm me I know that is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry. These are the only way[s] I know it. Is there any other way?”
To illustrate the second point, two poems immediately come into my mind. Coincidentally both are very short poems. One is a haiku by Taniguchi Buson -
The piercing chill I feel:
my dead wife's comb, in our bedroom,
under my heel . . .
And the other poem is Accident by Gilbert Koh, a local poet I greatly respect.
He once told me,
“A poem has to show me something that I wasn't aware of; or it has to show me something that I was aware of, but in a way I'd never thought of before. If I don't discover anything new in a poem, then it doesn't work for me. It's not a poem to me.”
I have no problem with that. But what if instead of a poem, it is a prose that “show me something that I wasn't aware of; or it has to show me something that I was aware of, but in a way I'd never thought of before. If I don't discover anything new …” can I still consider it a poem? In fact many articles written by Mr Wang in his blog "Did Mister Wang Say So?" meet the above requirements, but they are definitely not poetry.
Maybe as suggested by Gilbert,
“And if it is a good piece, does it really matter whether it is more correctly classified as prose or poetry?”
Well sorry Gilbert, but it does matters to me because I am the stubborn type.
Although the boundary between poetry and prose remind obscure but there is still hope; as Joan Houlihan in her reply to Fred Moramarco said
“While I agree that it is basically impossible to successfully and fully define a poem, I maintain that it is possible to define a non-poem – by its lack of poetic conventions.”
In my opinion, if you write a prose using poetic devices, if you insist, you can call it a prose poem. On the other hand, if you write a poem in the manners as if you are writing a prose, it will remain a prose, nothing but a prose. -
KittynMeow:
I guess for your case, it depends on how familiar the reader is with Vietnam war?? When I read it, I got the idea of Vietcong scurrying here and there through their massive network of underground tunnels... but i guess if a reader doesn't know you're referring to the Vietnam war, then it's kinda tough putting it in context?Originally posted by dsnake1:Oops! so the tanka didn't work too well!
peebrain, it's all right, i welcome the feedback.
Maybe those who read on wars may see the allusions more clearly. Chu Chi is a place in the former South Vietnam famous for its tunnels dug by the guerrilla armies fighting against the Americans in the Vietnam War. The rats allude to the Vietcong hiding in those tunnel complexes. Metal locusts refer to american air power. The VC are like ghosts because they are very elusive. At one time Chu Chi was one of the most bombed areas on earth.
Hope this little history lesson helps in the imaging.
>>I have also the world's most logical mind. heheh, i like that.