This from Corvid_Conquest concerning poetry.
Great poems are those that may be read over a dozen times over, but still something may be gained from them! If a poem can be fully grasped in a single solitary reading, then is it even worthy of the title of poetry? To this end, every single word must contribute something vital to the poem, and beyond this too, the structure must mirror the intended tone. If you're writing a poem about the terrors of war, the sounds must instill terror in the reader/listener whether they understand the language or not. If writing on the frantic ecstasies of mania, the reader/listener must be drawn into the hyperactive jolting around inherent in its erratic and inexplicable glee and/or irritation.
These constitute two potential layers for passing on the significance of your poem to the reader/listener, and each of them contains within their own unique and varied sub-layers; but there is also a third layer as such, the layer of presentation. Three layers for meaning: sense within the linguistic phrases, sense within the logic of structure, and sense within the contextual presentation - and each capable of multiple sub-layers intermingling.
That all these elements come together, with nothing superfluous or inauthentic, is a difficult task to accomplish well. However, I will implore you to aspire to say in a single line what most writers may need an entire book, or possibly several books, to say. There is the risk that ordinary people will be baffled by 95%+ of it, but there should be no doubt that they certainly feel it, nevertheless. Use your words as you would a scarce resource that is important to survival, and strive for the ultimate economy of language. I guarantee you will not regret it!
Best regards,
~ Michel-Vincent Corbeaux (Poet)
Great poems are those that may be read over a dozen times over, but still something may be gained from them! If a poem can be fully grasped in a single solitary reading, then is it even worthy of the title of poetry? To this end, every single word must contribute something vital to the poem, and beyond this too, the structure must mirror the intended tone. If you're writing a poem about the terrors of war, the sounds must instill terror in the reader/listener whether they understand the language or not. If writing on the frantic ecstasies of mania, the reader/listener must be drawn into the hyperactive jolting around inherent in its erratic and inexplicable glee and/or irritation.
These constitute two potential layers for passing on the significance of your poem to the reader/listener, and each of them contains within their own unique and varied sub-layers; but there is also a third layer as such, the layer of presentation. Three layers for meaning: sense within the linguistic phrases, sense within the logic of structure, and sense within the contextual presentation - and each capable of multiple sub-layers intermingling.
That all these elements come together, with nothing superfluous or inauthentic, is a difficult task to accomplish well. However, I will implore you to aspire to say in a single line what most writers may need an entire book, or possibly several books, to say. There is the risk that ordinary people will be baffled by 95%+ of it, but there should be no doubt that they certainly feel it, nevertheless. Use your words as you would a scarce resource that is important to survival, and strive for the ultimate economy of language. I guarantee you will not regret it!
Best regards,
~ Michel-Vincent Corbeaux (Poet)
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Gender Any
Size 640 x 640px
Very true and I wish it was more widely known.
I dislike when people say: 'How can this be poetry if it does not rhyme?'
It is because people use words to express their own nature. Tradition is a guide, not a law.
I found myself that even if I use poetry to express feelings that are hard to process, that is perfectly fine, even if it makes little sense. As long as your words are filled with purpose, there is no bad way of writing in general, and poetry in particular.
🧡💚💜
I dislike when people say: 'How can this be poetry if it does not rhyme?'
It is because people use words to express their own nature. Tradition is a guide, not a law.
I found myself that even if I use poetry to express feelings that are hard to process, that is perfectly fine, even if it makes little sense. As long as your words are filled with purpose, there is no bad way of writing in general, and poetry in particular.
🧡💚💜
Yeah, you pretty well understand this, it seems. I would like to point out that I've seen that kind of narrow-minded elitism go both ways, however. You'll find just as many uncreative poets, and poetry critics, railing against you using tired outdated formalist techniques, like meter and rhyme, as you will find those insisting you MUST use meter and rhyme for it to even be considered poetry. Both are incredibly wrong, and for similar reasons.
Anyway, thank you for reading! I'm glad you appreciate it! ^v^
Anyway, thank you for reading! I'm glad you appreciate it! ^v^
"Sound advice." That's what is left of the original reply that I wanted to make here.
The only other thing I have to mention is that I bristled like a steel wire brush at:
"If a poem can be fully grasped in a single solitary reading, then is it even worthy of the title of poetry?"
Yes. Yes, it is, and it is criminally presumptuous of anyone to think otherwise. There is a book that I've had since childhood, "The Best Loved Poems of the American People" compiled by Hazel Felleman in 1936, that has example after example of delightful story-poems that can be "fully grasped in a single solitary reading" like "I Had But Fifty Cents", "The Hell-Bound Train", and "How Paddy Stole the Rope".
My suggestion is to enrich your poetic library by searching out this book. It is a giant tome (about 670 pages) with poems by well-known, and little-known poets from around the world.
(I know there's a second volume of that book, but I'm not very familiar with it, as it was recently acquired, and I haven't had much of a chance to read through it in recent times.)
The only other thing I have to mention is that I bristled like a steel wire brush at:
"If a poem can be fully grasped in a single solitary reading, then is it even worthy of the title of poetry?"
Yes. Yes, it is, and it is criminally presumptuous of anyone to think otherwise. There is a book that I've had since childhood, "The Best Loved Poems of the American People" compiled by Hazel Felleman in 1936, that has example after example of delightful story-poems that can be "fully grasped in a single solitary reading" like "I Had But Fifty Cents", "The Hell-Bound Train", and "How Paddy Stole the Rope".
My suggestion is to enrich your poetic library by searching out this book. It is a giant tome (about 670 pages) with poems by well-known, and little-known poets from around the world.
(I know there's a second volume of that book, but I'm not very familiar with it, as it was recently acquired, and I haven't had much of a chance to read through it in recent times.)
I have to admit I was being a bit hyperbolic with that phrase, and sometimes it's difficult to be completely clear and coherent when experiencing what I did while writing that. I was trying to imply that this is what a poet should USUALLY strive for, though there are obvious exceptions. One of those might be a poem written for children, but even there remains a flexibility with that guideline. I'm sorry, I should probably revise, or at least qualify, that statement to better fit.
Just for the record, my favorite poets are Shel Silverstein, Rudyard Kipling and Brian Jacques. So, not the pretentious sort.
I despise the emphasis I've heard from contemporary academic poets insisting that we should strive for pretentiousness in writing. For me, the obscurity of their terminology, and choice of their structure, is just a smokescreen for the fact that they have nothing of substance to say. They try so desperately to sound unique, but end up failing resoundingly, until they sound like just about every other academic poet.
I like the poets you mentioned, especially Kipling. In fact, I liked Kipling enough to memorize two of my favorite poems from him: Gods of the Copybook Headings, and When Earth's Last Picture is Painted.
I like the poets you mentioned, especially Kipling. In fact, I liked Kipling enough to memorize two of my favorite poems from him: Gods of the Copybook Headings, and When Earth's Last Picture is Painted.
When Earth's Last Picture Is Painted:
https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/po.....earthslast.htm
Gods of the Copybook Headings:
https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/po.....s_copybook.htm
In addition to these two, Gunga Din also happens to be a favorite of mine, although I haven't yet memorized it like the other two.
https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/po.....earthslast.htm
Gods of the Copybook Headings:
https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/po.....s_copybook.htm
In addition to these two, Gunga Din also happens to be a favorite of mine, although I haven't yet memorized it like the other two.
Comments