how would you teach someone to write poetry?

[cacian]

this someone has never written poetry before.
how does one begin? what advice tips would you give?

[MorpheusSandman]

There are tons of creative writing textbooks out there for poetry, eg:

Writing Poems
Open Roads
A Poet's Craft
Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Poem
Writing Poetry

Not being a teacher I really don't know how one "begins." I think writing exercises like, eg, telling someone to write a poem based on a few interesting words, or based on a form, subject matter, diction, image, symbol, metaphor, etc. is as good a way as any to start. Give them different methods to spark the creative process and see what works for them. When I first began writing poetry I was most interested in experimenting with form, so learning new forms is what inspired me most; but every poet is different. One thing I'd be sure to stress, though, is that what makes poetry unique as an art-form is form itself, how a poet utilizes every aspect of language as well as that language's arrangement on a page to enhance whatever is being said. If a poet isn't going to pay attention to form then they might as well write in prose.

Perhaps more than anything, though, I'd tell any new, aspiring poet to read a lot of poetry; to imitate what they like, and ignore what they don't like (and, perhaps most importantly, try to understand why they like what they like and dislike what they dislike). Eventually, after they've read and imitated so much they'll be able to seamlessly blend so many influences that the outcome will probably be poetry and resonates with the past and present.

[JBI]

Get a good anthology, like the Norton and spend a year reading the back essays, and every single poem at least 3 times. Memorize as much as you can.

Also, try to memorize as much of the KJV and Ovid as possible. A good primer on Greek mythology would also help, as well as general readings in the classics.

The trick to writing good poetry is to understand poetry. It's amazing how many would be poets have never read any contemporary verse, let alone much classical verse.

The reason why the tradition prevails is that the fundamentals of the language have remained relatively constant from Chaucer to our time, some would even say from Beowulf to now. Our metrics and the sound of the language has not changed much, still insisting on specific meters and flow.

Once that is out of the way then the would be poet can begin experimenting. So for instance, if one is interested in bringing other traditions into one's work, one better understand those works (I cannot tell you how many people have made sloppy use of Chinese and Japanese sources that just looks bad). Once we have that out of the way, we can begin to work toward a sort of individual style, by experimentation and practice.

I am yet to meet a good poet who is not interested in other poetry. No poet really stands alone, and generally the best poets have a lasting commentary on the history of poetry as a whole. Wordsworth, for instance, began emulating typical 18th century verse, until he decided it didn't work for him. Coleridge was very much a classicist in his education. We must realize that they were revolutionary only in their ability to shift understandings forward, not in making a clean break.

Now, we live in a chaotic poetic world, with more good poetry written every day than ever, and a real necessity of selection. We cannot read everything, and generally readers group based on one specific genre or periodical. In that sense, one's collected poems seems to require not just dabbling in everything, but a focused sort of Ars Poetica that identifies somebody as not just following genre conventions.

[cacian]

There are tons of creative writing textbooks out there for poetry, eg:

Writing Poems
Open Roads
A Poet's Craft
Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Poem
Writing Poetry

Not being a teacher I really don't know how one "begins." I think writing exercises like, eg, telling someone to write a poem based on a few interesting words, or based on a form, subject matter, diction, image, symbol, metaphor, etc. is as good a way as any to start. Give them different methods to spark the creative process and see what works for them. When I first began writing poetry I was most interested in experimenting with form, so learning new forms is what inspired me most; but every poet is different. One thing I'd be sure to stress, though, is that what makes poetry unique as an art-form is form itself, how a poet utilizes every aspect of language as well as that language's arrangement on a page to enhance whatever is being said. If a poet isn't going to pay attention to form then they might as well write in prose.

Perhaps more than anything, though, I'd tell any new, aspiring poet to read a lot of poetry; to imitate what they like, and ignore what they don't like (and, perhaps most importantly, try to understand why they like what they like and dislike what they dislike). Eventually, after they've read and imitated so much they'll be able to seamlessly blend so many influences that the outcome will probably be poetry and resonates with the past and present.

great post Morpheus. but why imitate?

[cacian]

Get a good anthology, like the Norton and spend a year reading the back essays, and every single poem at least 3 times. Memorize as much as you can.

Also, try to memorize as much of the KJV and Ovid as possible. A good primer on Greek mythology would also help, as well as general readings in the classics.

The trick to writing good poetry is to understand poetry. It's amazing how many would be poets have never read any contemporary verse, let alone much classical verse.

The reason why the tradition prevails is that the fundamentals of the language have remained relatively constant from Chaucer to our time, some would even say from Beowulf to now. Our metrics and the sound of the language has not changed much, still insisting on specific meters and flow.

Once that is out of the way then the would be poet can begin experimenting. So for instance, if one is interested in bringing other traditions into one's work, one better understand those works (I cannot tell you how many people have made sloppy use of Chinese and Japanese sources that just looks bad). Once we have that out of the way, we can begin to work toward a sort of individual style, by experimentation and practice.

I am yet to meet a good poet who is not interested in other poetry. No poet really stands alone, and generally the best poets have a lasting commentary on the history of poetry as a whole. Wordsworth, for instance, began emulating typical 18th century verse, until he decided it didn't work for him. Coleridge was very much a classicist in his education. We must realize that they were revolutionary only in their ability to shift understandings forward, not in making a clean break.

Now, we live in a chaotic poetic world, with more good poetry written every day than ever, and a real necessity of selection. We cannot read everything, and generally readers group based on one specific genre or periodical. In that sense, one's collected poems seems to require not just dabbling in everything, but a focused sort of Ars Poetica that identifies somebody as not just following genre conventions.

the trick to poetry I agree is understanding but with so many written pieces remaining misunderstood how is one to follow in the same footstep?
it is difficult to teach Beowulf and not feel somehow cheated because one cannot clearly understand it.
would not that put a damper on it I suspect the learner may not keen. I have had similar experiences at university with poetry. I could not make it. i was disappointed because what I had come read did not inspire me. the English language came across as dainted dated.

[JBI]

the trick to poetry I agree is understanding but with so many written pieces remaining misunderstood how is one to follow in the same footstep?
it is difficult to teach Beowulf and not feel somehow cheated because one cannot clearly understand it.
would not that put a damper on it I suspect the learner may not keen. I have had similar experiences at university with poetry. I could not make it. i was disappointed because what I had come read did not inspire me. the English language came across as dainted dated.

You should be familiar. Not master it. But the 4 stress line is so English that anybody can benefit from understanding it properly.

[mortalterror]

Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show,
That the dear she might take some pleasure of my pain,
Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know,
Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain,
I sought fit words to paint the blackest face of woe:
Studying inventions fine, her wits to entertain,
Oft turning others' leaves, to see if thence would flow
Some fresh and fruitful showers upon my sunburned brain.
But words came halting forth, wanting Invention's stay;
Invention, Nature's child, fled stepdame Study's blows;
And others' feet still seemed but strangers in my way.
Thus, great with child to speak, and helpless in my throes,
Biting my truant pen, beating myself for spite:
"Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write."
-Philip Sidney

[MorpheusSandman]

but why imitate?

Imitating teaches you several things. First it helps you get into the mind of other great poets. Second it helps you understand why/how certain devices and techniques work. Third it helps you discern what devices and techniques are still useful and which belong to bygone eras. Through imitating you ultimately become selective, and through being selective you eventually form a style out of what imitations are kept and which are dropped. I especially think of, eg, Byron, who began by imitating Pope and Dryden, but by the time he got around to writing his masterpiece, Don Juan, while he had kept Pope and Dryden's mock-heroic satire element, he had developed his own unique way of utilizing it, supplemented by his experiments in other modes, forms, and styles: from the lyric to the supernatural to the philosophical digression etc. So, ultimately, it was his imitations that lead to the label "Byronic."

[MorpheusSandman]

JBI, your whole post is assuming that every poet desires to ultimately be a great poet and canonized. There are many people who just desire a personal, creative outlet and have no interest in understanding other poetry or even being great. My post was thinking more along the lines of ways to help everyone/anyone be creative, though I do agree that your way is preferable for those poets genuinely desiring to be great. It's much the same path I've followed (I've read both the Norton and Wadsworth Anthology each a couple of time, memorizing several of my favorite poems).

That said, I'm not terribly convinced that the trick to writing great poetry is understanding poetry. When I think of people who truly understand poetry I think of the great living and past critics: Helen Vendler, Christopher Ricks, William Empson, IA Richards, Cleanth Brooks, etc. from this century alone, and none of them poets (well, Empson wrote poetry, but it wasn't great). To me, understanding poetry and understanding how to write poetry are two uniquely different skills. Most great poets, while they tend to be great readers, also tend to be idiosyncratic readers whose understanding and preferences are outgrowths from their own style and experimentation. A good example that immediately comes to mind is John Ashbery, whose lone book on poetry is about poets rather outside the tradition: Other Traditions

The reason why the tradition prevails is that the fundamentals of the language have remained relatively constant from Chaucer to our time, some would even say from Beowulf to now.

Or because essentially the same group of people have been deciding what that tradition is.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

How would you teach someone to write poetry?
This someone never has written poetry..
Sorry to say no one can teach him. because writing poetry is a personal hobby and many teachers of English in my country cannot write one verse even if they have experienced in language more than twenty years and even they had directorate in English...
Someone you didn't mention his name if he has the truth desire in writing must read literature and must focus on this career more than five years and must have background of knowledge, this is at least for those the English language to them is a second language

[JBI]

JBI, your whole post is assuming that every poet desires to ultimately be a great poet and canonized. There are many people who just desire a personal, creative outlet and have no interest in understanding other poetry or even being great. My post was thinking more along the lines of ways to help everyone/anyone be creative, though I do agree that your way is preferable for those poets genuinely desiring to be great. It's much the same path I've followed (I've read both the Norton and Wadsworth Anthology each a couple of time, memorizing several of my favorite poems).

That said, I'm not terribly convinced that the trick to writing great poetry is understanding poetry. When I think of people who truly understand poetry I think of the great living and past critics: Helen Vendler, Christopher Ricks, William Empson, IA Richards, Cleanth Brooks, etc. from this century alone, and none of them poets (well, Empson wrote poetry, but it wasn't great). To me, understanding poetry and understanding how to write poetry are two uniquely different skills. Most great poets, while they tend to be great readers, also tend to be idiosyncratic readers whose understanding and preferences are outgrowths from their own style and experimentation. A good example that immediately comes to mind is John Ashbery, whose lone book on poetry is about poets rather outside the tradition: Other Traditions

Or because essentially the same group of people have been deciding what that tradition is.

The familiarity is necessary, if not the thorough analysis of the scholar. Wordsworth would have read much of the canon of his time, though perhaps not as thoroughly as his friend Coleridge, who was undoubtedly the better critical mind.

What we mean by reading is being familiar - Vendler for example would be the kind of critic who becomes on with the poet - meaning she memorizes their works and sees how they interact properly. Still, generally poetry is 90% mixing and playing with other people's work, and 10% innovation. The 10% is where people shine, so it is important to really have a strong 90%.

As for poets who want to be causal poets, well, nobody will ever read their mediocre verses anyway. But on these boards just look how many people post poems to "meter" that don't have proper line lengths or cannot rhyme properly (take the Backstreet boys' famous Fire, Desire rhyme as a common screw up). with that in mind, sure, any book can teach them how to write like that, but nobody but maybe their wife or mother will ever want to read it. Poetry only really works relative to a tradition.

[MorpheusSandman]

JBI, I think we're in basic agreement about the importance of being familiar with the tradition. In fact, when you say that poetry is "90% mixing... other people's work and 10% innovation," I'd be inclined to argue that most of that innovation is really in HOW you mix other people's work! It's hard to think of any poet or artist whose "innovations" were much more than unique combinations of past elements. Even Whitman's revolutionary free verse had its origins (in terms of Whitman's influence) in Biblical verse.

But on these boards just look how many people post poems to "meter" that don't have proper line lengths or cannot rhyme properly (take the Backstreet boys' famous Fire, Desire rhyme as a common screw up). with that in mind, sure, any book can teach them how to write like that, but nobody but maybe their wife or mother will ever want to read it. Poetry only really works relative to a tradition.

I used to frequent the Personal Poetry board a lot, but I never noticed a lot of metrical writing. As for "rhyming properly," keep in mind that Yeats really kicked off the trend in modern metrical verse of slant rhymes and off-rhymes, something that poets like Auden and Merrill pushed even further (rhyming, eg, on unstressed feminine endings. or adding feminine endings to the rhymed stress syllable). Anyway, we just read the thread title/question differently. What you say about the, let's call them, "hobbyist poets," having no audience is probably true, but it's true that the vast majority of writers, singers, songwriters, painters, filmmakers, etc. will never have an audience. I still wouldn't claim that what they're doing is worthless because different people create for different reasons. If what they're doing is worth it for them, then that's enough, yet even hobbyists are often interested in learning more about their craft. Maybe they don't care to learn/work enough to be widely read (much less canonized), but so what?

[JBI]

JBI, I think we're in basic agreement about the importance of being familiar with the tradition. In fact, when you say that poetry is "90% mixing... other people's work and 10% innovation," I'd be inclined to argue that most of that innovation is really in HOW you mix other people's work! It's hard to think of any poet or artist whose "innovations" were much more than unique combinations of past elements. Even Whitman's revolutionary free verse had its origins (in terms of Whitman's influence) in Biblical verse.

I used to frequent the Personal Poetry board a lot, but I never noticed a lot of metrical writing. As for "rhyming properly," keep in mind that Yeats really kicked off the trend in modern metrical verse of slant rhymes and off-rhymes, something that poets like Auden and Merrill pushed even further (rhyming, eg, on unstressed feminine endings. or adding feminine endings to the rhymed stress syllable). Anyway, we just read the thread title/question differently. What you say about the, let's call them, "hobbyist poets," having no audience is probably true, but it's true that the vast majority of writers, singers, songwriters, painters, filmmakers, etc. will never have an audience. I still wouldn't claim that what they're doing is worthless because different people create for different reasons. If what they're doing is worth it for them, then that's enough, yet even hobbyists are often interested in learning more about their craft. Maybe they don't care to learn/work enough to be widely read (much less canonized), but so what?

Ok, it's not worthless, however I will say that it is worthless to anybody who isn't their friend or mother or wife, and even friends don't want to read their friend's bad poetry. There is so much rubbish mixed into the Personal Poetry boards, anybody can see it. Generally we get a lot of posters who come on here and drop 10 poems at a time just for the sake of having any audience. The fact of the matter is none of those ten poems have any technical merit, let alone any interpretive merit. They are merely junk.

Now, you can say junk is not completely worthless, but to an uninvolved audience it is. If I want to research an historical Chinese figure, for instance, I may consult their extant poems, regardless of how bad, but still from an artistic perspective they are worthless. We must always keep in mind that one should not limit their audience if one wants to have worth. The extent that people can enjoy or want to read certain poems, over space and time is a testament to the strength and appeal of the work. If only one's wife cares, then quite frankly the poem is worth quite little.

[Jassy Melson]

You cannot teach writing poetry to anyone; the writing of poetry cannot be taught.

[MorpheusSandman]

You cannot teach writing poetry to anyone; the writing of poetry cannot be taught.

50,000,000 Creative Writing Classes Can't Be Wrong.