A Rundown of Structured Poetry

[Gospel]

Yeah, I figured they aren't exactly the same field but have something in common as athleticism to sports. The rules of the games are different however innate skills & workouts that benefit one sport are not necessarily useless to the other.

 

[rousseau]

Yeah, I figured they aren't exactly the same field but have something in common as athleticism to sports. The rules of the games are different however innate skills & workouts that benefit one sport are not necessarily useless to the other.

I'd guess a lot of the similarity you'd see would be in literary devices, the building blocks of phrases and even themes within a poem or song. So poetry could add value in that way, but it's hard to say who would be a good read. You could also just go directly to some reading on devices.

I think with hip-hop and song-writing more broadly the song kind of acts as a constraint on your freedom. In poetry you can say whatever you want in any way, but in song-writing you're usually looking for a more popular appeal, and simpler themes that are more easily expressed. Oddly enough I find I like hip hop more when the artist writes simpler lyrics, which I think makes it easier to write a well-produced song that sounds good.

 

[WAB]

Bad wifi!!!

Gospel: Saul Williams, Dead Emcee Scrolls. I have that book, and I love it, though I do not listen to hip hop. Never got into it. Tried, just not my cuppa...

More soon...

 

[Gospel]

Saul Williams is one of my favorites, though I must admit, I play wine way more than his other works because it goes great with my drinking session. Now Dead Emcee Scrolls, on the other hand, imma check that out. Thanks

 

[Gospel]

Duh, that is Saul. hahaha

Edit: BTW Hip-hop is definitely not for everyone. I can't sit and listen to classical music for 2 minutes without wanting to shoot myself in the face. So I get it.

 

[WAB]

Warning...Warning...Warning...

Duh, that is Saul. hahaha

Edit: BTW Hip-hop is definitely not for everyone. I can't sit and listen to classical music for 2 minutes without wanting to shoot myself in the face. So I get it.

Lol! I LOVE classical. Been grokking early Mozart symphonies for a long while. To my mind he is virtually unmatched for development of melodies, and
The amazing rapidity and productivity of his creative spirit. The greatest symphony ever composed was Mahler's 2nd, The Resurrection; Brahms was effing incredible as was Dvorak, Beethoven, Shubert, Schumann...[skip a little brother...] Richard Strauss, Stravinsky (who despised Mahler), Shostakovich...etc., etc., etc., c&...

ETA:

I have a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig lecture prepared for you poetry hobbyists!

You better put hardcover books in your back pockets, or wear some sort of pneumatic bottockseses' protective devices, because I am lighting my pipe and preparing to dress all of you down royally, I say!

The punishment shall be severe! Prepare thyselves, O ye contenders for the TFT Poet Larueateship!

The great and ridiculously irrelevant WAB cometh! Behold, he cometh with a whirling of wind and with Skittles candy to be amongst thee in his wrath and his dire judgment!

 

[WAB]

That last post is a reminder to me not to post after consuming too much Mickey's malt liquor.

As far as being a hobbyist: I really feel that approaching a craft this way is giving yourself an excuse to not try very hard. I am a "hobbyist" in my approach to music, with respect to playing, composing, and recording. I play by ear, don't really know the scales, can't read formal notation, or write it.

I suppose I am content making my simple music? Yeah, that's what it is! I am a hobbyist, so I don't really have to make a great effort in that area.

I am giving myself an excuse to go about making music in a...well...in a half-assed way!

 

[rousseau]

That last post is a reminder to me not to post after consuming too much Mickey's malt liquor.

As far as being a hobbyist: I really feel that approaching a craft this way is giving yourself an excuse to not try very hard. I am a "hobbyist" in my approach to music, with respect to playing, composing, and recording. I play by ear, don't really know the scales, can't read formal notation, or write it.

I suppose I am content making my simple music? Yeah, that's what it is! I am a hobbyist, so I don't really have to make a great effort in that area.

I am giving myself an excuse to go about making music in a...well...in a half-assed way!

That's partly what I touched on in an earlier post. I'd love to take my writing more seriously but my time is better spent on other things.

For example, maintaining my software portfolio and skills could be the difference in tens of thousands of dollars of lifetime earnings for me. Where poetry doesn't really help me in any measurable way besides killing time.

So I do want to be a great writer, but the hobby moves at it's own pace, once more important things are taken care of.

 

[rousseau]

I was just reading through my recent book over the past few days. As I continue to read other poets and go through the biography of George Seferis I'm always tempted to look at my own writing and ask myself .. am I actually good at this, am I actually a good writer?

I was pondering this question this week and I decidedly came to the conclusion that.. yes.. I'm a good writer. But I realized that those who read poetry (and writing more broadly) need to shift away from what they think poetry (or writing) ought to be, and instead just enjoy the particular expression and voice of who they're reading.

Personally, I find poetry a bit odd as an art form because most published poets seem to have a distinct and common character, and yet when you're bringing words together to form a poem the possibilities are really limitless. So why is it that a vehicle of expression ends up so limited in practice? And why is anything that deviates from this norm judged as wrong? What exactly is it that makes a good poem? Is it the poet conforming to the reader, or the reader conforming to the poet? Maybe that's why poetry is so unpopular as a genre, because people are such bad listeners, and poets wanting to conform to traditional forms sometimes forget to say anything interesting.

Anyway, I mention this because my biggest point of consternation with my own poetry is that it's about as non-traditional as it can get. It often doesn't feel like real poetry. And yet I'm accepting lately that the form it takes is exactly how I want it to be. I'm not trying to imitate what poets were doing 50 or 100 years ago, I'm expressing myself in the form of poetry, by my own standards. So back to the original point of this post, I think there's room to be a good writer, but not write poetry that is strictly traditional. But problems arise when people have particular expectations of what your poetry should sound like, rather than reading into it.

 

[WAB]

Rousseau, I like your last post very much, as it opens up a lot for discussion.

I seem to detect a little criticism leveled against formal poets, or traditionalists. I think this is by and large very healthy, not to mention wholly understandable. I do not object to your observations, per se, and in fact endorse them at least insofar as I think they are progressive and productive.

Why formal poetry? Why limit expression with strict parameters of syllables, verse structures, and further impede the creative spirit with rhyme?

I will have to get to those questions later, as it's time to head to work. It's a double, so my next response won't come for another 14 hrs or so.

 

[rousseau]

Rousseau, I like your last post very much, as it opens up a lot for discussion.

I seem to detect a little criticism leveled against formal poets, or traditionalists. I think this is by and large very healthy, not to mention wholly understandable. I do not object to your observations, per se, and in fact endorse them at least insofar as I think they are progressive and productive.

Why formal poetry? Why limit expression with strict parameters of syllables, verse structures, and further impede the creative spirit with rhyme?

I will have to get to those questions later, as it's time to head to work. It's a double, so my next response won't come for another 14 hrs or so.

I don't know that it's necessarily a criticism of traditional poetry, but rather just the recognition that tradition seems to constrain the form. Not in the sense that you can't write good traditional poetry, but because tradition sets people's expectations of what poetry is. So in the last century anyone who's made a name for themselves as a poet is more similar to those who came before them, than they are different. Not unlike other art forms where you kind of have to play to popular perceptions if you want to make a name for yourself.

There are many traditional poets that I enjoy, but I make that post to note that in my own poetry I don't have a lot of interest in conforming to tradition. I read so many poets who write beautifully but where I either can't crack the code of their poem, or beneath the words there is minimal substance. And this is largely what sets my own writing apart - I wish to be explicit and clear, rather than to shroud. But traditionally you just don't see this style, which has caused me angst and a feeling that I'm doing it the wrong way. But lately I'm realizing that traditionally popular poetry just isn't what I want to write.

On some level I'm starting to have a similar feeling to what you've expressed in some other posts - you got bored with the whole process, and that many poets who sell books do so from scratching each other's back. To the masses poetry has become a largely irrelevant and ignored genre, while those who wish to be public with it are often striving to conform to these very ignored norms. So what is the poet who seeks notoriety achieving, really, if their work is mostly ignored? Is it just an image thing?

My own personal motive is to express myself and to enjoy the process of creating and improving my writing skill. I think, fundamentally, this is what creative writing is about - expressing oneself and producing the art one wants to.

 

[WAB]

Rousseau, I like your last post very much, as it opens up a lot for discussion.

I seem to detect a little criticism leveled against formal poets, or traditionalists. I think this is by and large very healthy, not to mention wholly understandable. I do not object to your observations, per se, and in fact endorse them at least insofar as I think they are progressive and productive.

Why formal poetry? Why limit expression with strict parameters of syllables, verse structures, and further impede the creative spirit with rhyme?

I will have to get to those questions later, as it's time to head to work. It's a double, so my next response won't come for another 14 hrs or so.

I don't know that it's necessarily a criticism of traditional poetry, but rather just the recognition that tradition seems to constrain the form. Not in the sense that you can't write good traditional poetry, but because tradition sets people's expectations of what poetry is. So in the last century anyone who's made a name for themselves as a poet is more similar to those who came before them, than they are different. Not unlike other art forms where you kind of have to play to popular perceptions if you want to make a name for yourself.

There are many traditional poets that I enjoy, but I make that post to note that in my own poetry I don't have a lot of interest in conforming to tradition. I read so many poets who write beautifully but where I either can't crack the code of their poem, or beneath the words there is minimal substance. And this is largely what sets my own writing apart - I wish to be explicit and clear, rather than to shroud. But traditionally you just don't see this style, which has caused me angst and a feeling that I'm doing it the wrong way. But lately I'm realizing that traditionally popular poetry just isn't what I want to write.

On some level I'm starting to have a similar feeling to what you've expressed in some other posts - you got bored with the whole process, and that many poets who sell books do so from scratching each other's back. To the masses poetry has become a largely irrelevant and ignored genre, while those who wish to be public with it are often striving to conform to these very ignored norms. So what is the poet who seeks notoriety achieving, really, if their work is mostly ignored? Is it just an image thing?

My own personal motive is to express myself and to enjoy the process of creating and improving my writing skill. I think, fundamentally, this is what creative writing is about - expressing oneself and producing the art one wants to.

I didn't get to respond last night because I got involved with the Shakespeare thread.

As for your last sentence: we have a different view of what poetry is. For me it is not all about self expression, not at all. Rather, it is a craft which uses words and language to create an impression, paint a picture, describe a moment, or explore a mental state, etc. If all I want to do is express myself I can write a journal.

At the first poetry workshop I joined online, called PFFA (Poetry Free-For-All), they had an expression to describe overly personal poetry, or poetry that dwelled mostly on oneself: a diary entry. They would say, "this sounds like a diary entry...".

Now, I am sure that by self expression you do not simply mean being candid or confessional, nor do you mean that you ONLY want to write about yourself. I hope you don't misunderstand me.

In poetry workshops they stress the importance of using concrete imagery. I'm sure you have heard the maxim, 'show, don't tell'. This pertains to prose as well. 'Telly' language doesn't work well in any kind of creative writing. If an author tells us a character is "good looking", this conveys virtually no information; rather, a good author will describe the character's physical features in a way that will allow us to form a more specific image in mind. Generally, a lot of detail is good, until it becomes overdone, cloying, and actually distracts from the narrative. Melville and Hawthorne were amazing authors but often overloaded their narratives with baroque detail; the amazing Edith Wharton wrote exquisite detail. Steinbeck, Dos Passos, the list goes on...AND, you already know all this! Sorry...

With regard to poetry, concrete imagery is of the utmost importance. Ezra Pound had his famous "Go in fear of abstractions.", which workshops like to borrow. It IS a handy piece of advise, particularly when it comes to composing poetry wherein you are expressing emotional states rather than action. As you know, your poems will have more impact if you limit the use of abstractions and try somehow to show the reader what mental state you are or were in, or the mental state of whomever you are writing about.

I have become distracted. This is just general stuff and doesn't pertain to structured poetry any more than it pertains to free verse, or prose for that matter!

Let me just close by saying that I recognize formal modes of poetry, or poetry that is metered, and maybe rhymes, is a constraint, but it is one I put on willingly and even happily. I like writing within defined parameters. I like the challenge of trying to do a villanelle or a Petrarchan sonnet. I think people who write formal poetry do it t because they like it, not because they want to sound like someone else, or as a cover for having little to say.

In any case, I think you would enjoy an essay by the poet Mary Karr, called, "Against Decoration". It was included in her book, Viper Rum, which I have. It was quite a few years back, but she takes formal poetry to task and does a rippingly good job of it, even taking on a major poet like James Merrill. I think you can find the essay online somewhere.

More later..

 

[rousseau]

Rousseau, I like your last post very much, as it opens up a lot for discussion.

I seem to detect a little criticism leveled against formal poets, or traditionalists. I think this is by and large very healthy, not to mention wholly understandable. I do not object to your observations, per se, and in fact endorse them at least insofar as I think they are progressive and productive.

Why formal poetry? Why limit expression with strict parameters of syllables, verse structures, and further impede the creative spirit with rhyme?

I will have to get to those questions later, as it's time to head to work. It's a double, so my next response won't come for another 14 hrs or so.

I don't know that it's necessarily a criticism of traditional poetry, but rather just the recognition that tradition seems to constrain the form. Not in the sense that you can't write good traditional poetry, but because tradition sets people's expectations of what poetry is. So in the last century anyone who's made a name for themselves as a poet is more similar to those who came before them, than they are different. Not unlike other art forms where you kind of have to play to popular perceptions if you want to make a name for yourself.

There are many traditional poets that I enjoy, but I make that post to note that in my own poetry I don't have a lot of interest in conforming to tradition. I read so many poets who write beautifully but where I either can't crack the code of their poem, or beneath the words there is minimal substance. And this is largely what sets my own writing apart - I wish to be explicit and clear, rather than to shroud. But traditionally you just don't see this style, which has caused me angst and a feeling that I'm doing it the wrong way. But lately I'm realizing that traditionally popular poetry just isn't what I want to write.

On some level I'm starting to have a similar feeling to what you've expressed in some other posts - you got bored with the whole process, and that many poets who sell books do so from scratching each other's back. To the masses poetry has become a largely irrelevant and ignored genre, while those who wish to be public with it are often striving to conform to these very ignored norms. So what is the poet who seeks notoriety achieving, really, if their work is mostly ignored? Is it just an image thing?

My own personal motive is to express myself and to enjoy the process of creating and improving my writing skill. I think, fundamentally, this is what creative writing is about - expressing oneself and producing the art one wants to.

I didn't get to respond last night because I got involved with the Shakespeare thread.

As for your last sentence: we have a different view of what poetry is. For me it is not all about self expression, not at all. Rather, it is a craft which uses words and language to create an impression, paint a picture, describe a moment, or explore a mental state, etc. If all I want to do is express myself I can write a journal.

At the first poetry workshop I joined online, called PFFA (Poetry Free-For-All), they had an expression to describe overly personal poetry, or poetry that dwelled mostly on oneself: a diary entry. They would say, "this sounds like a diary entry...".

Now, I am sure that by self expression you do not simply mean being candid or confessional, nor do you mean that you ONLY want to write about yourself. I hope you don't misunderstand me.

That makes sense. The phrase I used - expressing oneself - I think can encapsulate your vision of poetry too. I don't mean to suggest that any way of writing poetry is the wrong way, that's exactly the idea that I'm trying to move away from. When I say it's a means to express oneself the way one wants, I mean that to imply expression in literally any way - including painting with words as you suggest.

But the more I think about this problem the more I realize that I'm being loose with my language. I don't think it's so much strictly 'formal' poetry that constrains, but more - all that came before. The literary world seems to be the beginning and end of what is considered good poetry, and I think this creates an inherent tension between what has already been written, and new poetry. On some level, to be taken seriously, new poetry has to stay within the bounds of normal, in the genre as a whole.

In poetry workshops they stress the importance of using concrete imagery. I'm sure you have heard the maxim, 'show, don't tell'. This pertains to prose as well. 'Telly' language doesn't work well in any kind of creative writing. If an author tells us a character is "good looking", this conveys virtually no information; rather, a good author will describe the character's physical features in a way that will allow us to form a more specific image in mind. Generally, a lot of detail is good, until it becomes overdone, cloying, and actually distracts from the narrative. Melville and Hawthorne were amazing authors but often overloaded their narratives with baroque detail; the amazing Edith Wharton wrote exquisite detail. Steinbeck, Dos Passos, the list goes on...AND, you already know all this! Sorry...

With regard to poetry, concrete imagery is of the utmost importance. Ezra Pound had his famous "Go in fear of abstractions.", which workshops like to borrow. It IS a handy piece of advise, particularly when it comes to composing poetry wherein you are expressing emotional states rather than action. As you know, your poems will have more impact if you limit the use of abstractions and try somehow to show the reader what mental state you are or were in, or the mental state of whomever you are writing about.

I have become distracted. This is just general stuff and doesn't pertain to structured poetry any more than it pertains to free verse, or prose for that matter!

Let me just close by saying that I recognize formal modes of poetry, or poetry that is metered, and maybe rhymes, is a constraint, but it is one I put on willingly and even happily. I like writing within defined parameters. I like the challenge of trying to do a villanelle or a Petrarchan sonnet. I think people who write formal poetry do it t because they like it, not because they want to sound like someone else, or as a cover for having little to say.

This is partly why I started this thread, because I'd like to take a stab at it too. And again I think I have to repeat the point I just made above - it's not so much 'formal' poetry that is strictly what I take issue with, but maybe a tendency for some poets to be overly literary.

As I read more poetry I find myself a little put off by the genre at times, as I come across writers who make pains to be descriptive and use the label of poet to identify as tortured genius, but where I just don't find the poetry that interesting. And I feel like an outcast because my writing doesn't follow the English PhD standard.

But I think this does go back to how we differ - I prefer the concepts of poetry, where you prefer the imagery of poetry. I can definitely enjoy both, but I think this highlights that how two people 'view' poetry can be quite divergent, and that maybe I'm trying too hard to categorize and delineate the genre, while forgetting that it's much more complicated in practice. There is room for a multitude of opinions and styles, and maybe I just need to continue charting my own course and defining my own voice.

In any case, I think you would enjoy an essay by the poet Mary Karr, called, "Against Decoration". It was included in her book, Viper Rum, which I have. It was quite a few years back, but she takes formal poetry to task and does a rippingly good job of it, even taking on a major poet like James Merrill. I think you can find the essay online somewhere.

More later..

Thanks for the recommendation, I have a feeling I'll identify with this essay. If you know where it can be found online I'd appreciate a link.

 

[WAB]

I didn't get to respond last night because I got involved with the Shakespeare thread.

As for your last sentence: we have a different view of what poetry is. For me it is not all about self expression, not at all. Rather, it is a craft which uses words and language to create an impression, paint a picture, describe a moment, or explore a mental state, etc. If all I want to do is express myself I can write a journal.

At the first poetry workshop I joined online, called PFFA (Poetry Free-For-All), they had an expression to describe overly personal poetry, or poetry that dwelled mostly on oneself: a diary entry. They would say, "this sounds like a diary entry...".

Now, I am sure that by self expression you do not simply mean being candid or confessional, nor do you mean that you ONLY want to write about yourself. I hope you don't misunderstand me.

That makes sense. The phrase I used - expressing oneself - I think can encapsulate your vision of poetry too. I don't mean to suggest that any way of writing poetry is the wrong way, that's exactly the idea that I'm trying to move away from. When I say it's a means to express oneself the way one wants, I mean that to imply expression in literally any way - including painting with words as you suggest.

But the more I think about this problem the more I realize that I'm being loose with my language. I don't think it's so much strictly 'formal' poetry that constrains, but more - all that came before. The literary world seems to be the beginning and end of what is considered good poetry, and I think this creates an inherent tension between what has already been written, and new poetry. On some level, to be taken seriously, new poetry has to stay within the bounds of normal, in the genre as a whole.

In poetry workshops they stress the importance of using concrete imagery. I'm sure you have heard the maxim, 'show, don't tell'. This pertains to prose as well. 'Telly' language doesn't work well in any kind of creative writing. If an author tells us a character is "good looking", this conveys virtually no information; rather, a good author will describe the character's physical features in a way that will allow us to form a more specific image in mind. Generally, a lot of detail is good, until it becomes overdone, cloying, and actually distracts from the narrative. Melville and Hawthorne were amazing authors but often overloaded their narratives with baroque detail; the amazing Edith Wharton wrote exquisite detail. Steinbeck, Dos Passos, the list goes on...AND, you already know all this! Sorry...

With regard to poetry, concrete imagery is of the utmost importance. Ezra Pound had his famous "Go in fear of abstractions.", which workshops like to borrow. It IS a handy piece of advise, particularly when it comes to composing poetry wherein you are expressing emotional states rather than action. As you know, your poems will have more impact if you limit the use of abstractions and try somehow to show the reader what mental state you are or were in, or the mental state of whomever you are writing about.

I have become distracted. This is just general stuff and doesn't pertain to structured poetry any more than it pertains to free verse, or prose for that matter!

Let me just close by saying that I recognize formal modes of poetry, or poetry that is metered, and maybe rhymes, is a constraint, but it is one I put on willingly and even happily. I like writing within defined parameters. I like the challenge of trying to do a villanelle or a Petrarchan sonnet. I think people who write formal poetry do it t because they like it, not because they want to sound like someone else, or as a cover for having little to say.

This is partly why I started this thread, because I'd like to take a stab at it too. And again I think I have to repeat the point I just made above - it's not so much 'formal' poetry that is strictly what I take issue with, but maybe a tendency for some poets to be overly literary.

As I read more poetry I find myself a little put off by the genre at times, as I come across writers who make pains to be descriptive and use the label of poet to identify as tortured genius, but where I just don't find the poetry that interesting. And I feel like an outcast because my writing doesn't follow the English PhD standard.

But I think this does go back to how we differ - I prefer the concepts of poetry, where you prefer the imagery of poetry. I can definitely enjoy both, but I think this highlights that how two people 'view' poetry can be quite divergent, and that maybe I'm trying too hard to categorize and delineate the genre, while forgetting that it's much more complicated in practice. There is room for a multitude of opinions and styles, and maybe I just need to continue charting my own course and defining my own voice.

In any case, I think you would enjoy an essay by the poet Mary Karr, called, "Against Decoration". It was included in her book, Viper Rum, which I have. It was quite a few years back, but she takes formal poetry to task and does a rippingly good job of it, even taking on a major poet like James Merrill. I think you can find the essay online somewhere.

More later..

Thanks for the recommendation, I have a feeling I'll identify with this essay. If you know where it can be found online I'd appreciate a link.

Sorry, Rousseau, I could not find a link. There was something that promised a PDF doc, but I couldn't get to it. I think it might be available at the JSTOR site, but you would probably have to pay for it. You could buy the book Viper Rum from some site, I believe her own site might have it, or Amazon, or eBay? In any case, I am positive, absolutely positive that you would like it, and I would bet that you would agree with her.

I misspoke. The essay is not so much a critique of formal poetry as it is a critique of overly decorative poetry. She uses the very famous James Merrill to show that plain speech is preferable to baroque, decorative, perhaps pretentious language.

Rousseau, have you visited my Blogger site? You just click my name, and in the drop down menu it says "visit WAB's homepage" or some such.

If you go there and scroll past the sonnet, there is a lot of experimental poetry on that first page. I write a lot of experimental poetry: Sound poetry, Found poetry, and various other poems that cannot be categorized.

About a third of my poetry is in free verse, and even in a lot of my metrical poetry I relax the constraints and let the work be as fluid and free as possible, like the amazing Derek Walcott.

More later...

 

[rousseau]

That makes sense. The phrase I used - expressing oneself - I think can encapsulate your vision of poetry too. I don't mean to suggest that any way of writing poetry is the wrong way, that's exactly the idea that I'm trying to move away from. When I say it's a means to express oneself the way one wants, I mean that to imply expression in literally any way - including painting with words as you suggest.

But the more I think about this problem the more I realize that I'm being loose with my language. I don't think it's so much strictly 'formal' poetry that constrains, but more - all that came before. The literary world seems to be the beginning and end of what is considered good poetry, and I think this creates an inherent tension between what has already been written, and new poetry. On some level, to be taken seriously, new poetry has to stay within the bounds of normal, in the genre as a whole.



This is partly why I started this thread, because I'd like to take a stab at it too. And again I think I have to repeat the point I just made above - it's not so much 'formal' poetry that is strictly what I take issue with, but maybe a tendency for some poets to be overly literary.

As I read more poetry I find myself a little put off by the genre at times, as I come across writers who make pains to be descriptive and use the label of poet to identify as tortured genius, but where I just don't find the poetry that interesting. And I feel like an outcast because my writing doesn't follow the English PhD standard.

But I think this does go back to how we differ - I prefer the concepts of poetry, where you prefer the imagery of poetry. I can definitely enjoy both, but I think this highlights that how two people 'view' poetry can be quite divergent, and that maybe I'm trying too hard to categorize and delineate the genre, while forgetting that it's much more complicated in practice. There is room for a multitude of opinions and styles, and maybe I just need to continue charting my own course and defining my own voice.

In any case, I think you would enjoy an essay by the poet Mary Karr, called, "Against Decoration". It was included in her book, Viper Rum, which I have. It was quite a few years back, but she takes formal poetry to task and does a rippingly good job of it, even taking on a major poet like James Merrill. I think you can find the essay online somewhere.

More later..

Thanks for the recommendation, I have a feeling I'll identify with this essay. If you know where it can be found online I'd appreciate a link.

Sorry, Rousseau, I could not find a link. There was something that promised a PDF doc, but I couldn't get to it. I think it might be available at the JSTOR site, but you would probably have to pay for it. You could buy the book Viper Rum from some site, I believe her own site might have it, or Amazon, or eBay? In any case, I am positive, absolutely positive that you would like it, and I would bet that you would agree with her.

I misspoke. The essay is not so much a critique of formal poetry as it is a critique of overly decorative poetry. She uses the very famous James Merrill to show that plain speech is preferable to baroque, decorative, perhaps pretentious language.

I just went ahead and ordered the book. Your comments on her essay are exactly what I had in mind. I often sense a bit of pretentiousness in poetry, and it seems the every day person can often sense it too. Taking a look at the definition of pretentious we get:

attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed

That seems in line with the term decorative. A conscious attempt to woo with imagery, rather than seeking the essence of one's own writing ability and voice. That seems to be when I enjoy poets the most, when they've discovered their own unique voice and aren't afraid to use it.

Rousseau, have you visited my Blogger site? You just click my name, and in the drop down menu it says "visit WAB's homepage" or some such.

If you go there and scroll past the sonnet, there is a lot of experimental poetry on that first page. I write a lot of experimental poetry: Sound poetry, Found poetry, and various other poems that cannot be categorized.

About a third of my poetry is in free verse, and even in a lot of my metrical poetry I relax the constraints and let the work be as fluid and free as possible, like the amazing Derek Walcott.

More later...

Thanks for pointing out your site, I'll definitely take a closer look and re-visit.

 

[WAB]

Sorry, Rousseau, I could not find a link. There was something that promised a PDF doc, but I couldn't get to it. I think it might be available at the JSTOR site, but you would probably have to pay for it. You could buy the book Viper Rum from some site, I believe her own site might have it, or Amazon, or eBay? In any case, I am positive, absolutely positive that you would like it, and I would bet that you would agree with her.

I misspoke. The essay is not so much a critique of formal poetry as it is a critique of overly decorative poetry. She uses the very famous James Merrill to show that plain speech is preferable to baroque, decorative, perhaps pretentious language.

I just went ahead and ordered the book. Your comments on her essay are exactly what I had in mind. I often sense a bit of pretentiousness in poetry, and it seems the every day person can often sense it too. Taking a look at the definition of pretentious we get:

attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed

That seems in line with the term decorative. A conscious attempt to woo with imagery, rather than seeking the essence of one's own writing ability and voice. That seems to be when I enjoy poets the most, when they've discovered their own unique voice and aren't afraid to use it.

Rousseau, have you visited my Blogger site? You just click my name, and in the drop down menu it says "visit WAB's homepage" or some such.

If you go there and scroll past the sonnet, there is a lot of experimental poetry on that first page. I write a lot of experimental poetry: Sound poetry, Found poetry, and various other poems that cannot be categorized.

About a third of my poetry is in free verse, and even in a lot of my metrical poetry I relax the constraints and let the work be as fluid and free as possible, like the amazing Derek Walcott.

More later...

Thanks for pointing out your site, I'll definitely take a closer look and re-visit.

Good, I think you will like Mary Karr's book. Her poetry is sometimes very good. It's been a few years since I read it. And I know you will enjoy her essay. Please let me know what you think of it.

As for my poetry, it is precious to me, but objectively I do understand that in the grand scheme of things, it is negligible. There are a few good poems, but alas, I am no unrecognized genius. I am unexceptional.

I think that with workshopping, and with effort, and with work, you could become an exceptional poet.

 

[rousseau]

I think that with workshopping, and with effort, and with work, you could become an exceptional poet.

Thanks for the kind words. I think you undersell yourself. This thread has gotten me thinking about the genre as a whole and it seems like a shame to compare / contrast poets in this way. On some level I've thought this way in the past too, but really - Cohen is good, Seferis is good, Szymborska is good, you're good, I'm good.

Anyone who's committed their life to writing has surely written a lot that's worth reading, and even the poetry of greats like Cohen has largely been ignored. There was a comment made by fromderinside a few months ago that had me do a double take (paraphrasing) - poetry, it exists, you read it, you don't worry about who, what, where, why, when. You just lose yourself in someone's verse. That's what I find so wonderful about my poetry collection, human expression via the written word. I believe this is about as interesting as art can get. I think that's partly why I find it disappointing that the genre is mostly comprised of English majors. It's like politicians and law - where's the variety in perspective?

But I appreciate your comment, and I'm glad you've taken the time to reply to me in this thread. I've enjoyed this conversation because people at this forum are the only one's I've shared the interest with. I've had a bit of an inclination to test the waters at Eratosphere, or the literary community in my city, but eventually I end up happy doing my own thing. I'm primarily interested in my own opinion with regards to my writing, and that approach seems to serve me well. It's also nice to have a few people around to remind me that I'm not completely awful .

 

[WAB]

I think that with workshopping, and with effort, and with work, you could become an exceptional poet.

Thanks for the kind words. I think you undersell yourself. This thread has gotten me thinking about the genre as a whole and it seems like a shame to compare / contrast poets in this way. On some level I've thought this way in the past too, but really - Cohen is good, Seferis is good, Szymborska is good, you're good, I'm good.

Anyone who's committed their life to writing has surely written a lot that's worth reading, and even the poetry of greats like Cohen has largely been ignored. There was a comment made by fromderinside a few months ago that had me do a double take (paraphrasing) - poetry, it exists, you read it, you don't worry about who, what, where, why, when. You just lose yourself in someone's verse. That's what I find so wonderful about my poetry collection, human expression via the written word. I believe this is about as interesting as art can get. I think that's partly why I find it disappointing that the genre is mostly comprised of English majors. It's like politicians and law - where's the variety in perspective?

But I appreciate your comment, and I'm glad you've taken the time to reply to me in this thread. I've enjoyed this conversation because people at this forum are the only one's I've shared the interest with. I've had a bit of an inclination to test the waters at Eratosphere, or the literary community in my city, but eventually I end up happy doing my own thing. I'm primarily interested in my own opinion with regards to my writing, and that approach seems to serve me well. It's also nice to have a few people around to remind me that I'm not completely awful .

Rousseau, one more post from me, and you will probably not like it. I apologise in advance:

You wrote that you are "primarily interested my own opinion with regards to my writing"...

Well, what I learned from workshopping - and applying what I learned to the real world- was that writing poetry is an altruistic art. You as a writer must be constantly aware of the reader: the Other. A poem without a reader is useless. Would you agree with that?

That you are satisfied with your own poetry is great, but the true measure of your poetry is how it registers with a READER.

I think that a workshop would benefit you. In fact, if you will pardon me, I KNOW it will benefit you. You will hate it at first, like I did. It is like boot camp. But with time and work, you will learn to love.it. You must surrender your ego. You must be wide open to harsh criticism, some of which will piss you the fuck off.

But, as you go along, and especially as you learn to critique the work of other writers and poets, you will benefit. I know I did. I HATED it at first. But after I learned to put my ego aside, I was able to learn and grow.

I know, it doesn't sound like fun, bit it is!

I would recommend Eratosphere, which has a forum for free verse, where you will interact with some poets who have actually publshed; the ONLY other decent workshop for poetry that I know of is PFFA - Poetry Free-For-All, a forum run by Bela Selendy, a poet and a good guy whom I know. The site does not have many widely published poets, but is good and open to beginners and people unfamiliar with online workshops.

 

[rousseau]

I don't doubt at all that I would benefit from extensive critique of my work, but then I need to stop and ask myself: how seriously am I actually taking this

Over the past few weeks I've debated posting a few poems to Eratosphere for something to do, but I stopped before doing so not because of any type of fear, but because I need to seriously question where I focus my time. I think there may be a risk of sinking too much of my identity and effort into writing, while overlooking the life that's happening to me on the way. My wife is permanently tired, my nine month old is learning how to speak, so my effort is maybe more ethically spent supporting their goals, not my own.

That's largely why I say I'm happy doing my own thing. I make the past-time work for me, rather than sinking too much of my energy or identity into it, because realistically even my own family is barely interested in my writing.

 

[WAB]

How'z about we switch gears and try another question?

The amazingly good poet W. H. Auden once said that:

"Poetry makes nothing happen..."

For context, you might have to search this quote.

Any reactions? Any thoughts?