Rhyme

[Alexander III]

Pardon me if my comment is ignorant as I have a limited experience with poetry but is it just me or is rhyme as a poetic tool appearing to have become an unfashionable trend. Most modern poetry I have seen( albeit I have seen little) appears to have forgone rhyme.

Furthermore I am interested in your opinions on rhyme as a poetic tool, is it still as relevant today as in the past? Is it an integral part of verse or merely a tool to render the poem "prettier"?

[Lumiere]

Pardon me if my comment is ignorant as I have a limited experience with poetry but is it just me or is rhyme as a poetic tool appearing to have become an unfashionable trend. Most modern poetry I have seen( albeit I have seen little) appears to have forgone rhyme.

Furthermore I am interested in your opinions on rhyme as a poetic tool, is it still as relevant today as in the past? Is it an integral part of verse or merely a tool to render the poem "prettier"?

Judging by the poems you've posted to the forum, I could hardly be lead to believe that your experience with poetry is limited. Anyway, I was just wondering the same thing myself the other day. I think you're right in supposing that rhyme has become unfashionable in modern poetry, but why it has shifted so, I don't know. Post-modernism has changed art so drastically. Perhaps it has something to do with "artless art", or saying things in such a raw, blunt way as to scorn convention and even art itself, and provoke an emotional response? I think people tend to feel that rhyme trivializes their thoughts rather than enhances the art of the poem. In fact, the most common use of rhyme in poetry today seems to be ironic, or a sort of mockery of rhyme. For example: a poem about death that is written in a flowery rhyming form. I'd like to think our reasons for largely forsaking rhyme are noble, but sometimes I wonder if it's just because we've gotten lazy.

[tailor STATELY]

I have often wrestled with whether to rhyme or not as noted by a poem I wrote a while back:

Rhyme ? No Reason !

To rhyme
a rhythmic
conformity
a lyrical madness
The rhetorical prose

© tailor STATELY
3-23-2004

I think rhyme will always have its place in modern poetry - it does add to the tone of a poem, especially to the Western eye and ear; probably due to the fact that we almost expect it from our youth as we grow up with nursery rhymes, and even most modern music lyrics.

[Dinkleberry2010]

Alexander, there are three questions in your statement. I will give you my opinion on those questions.
1. Is rhyme as a poetic tool becoming an unfashionable trend?
I think that generally in the last fifty years, so-called free verse has become the dominant "trend." That's not to say that rhyme has been forgotten, it's just that most poetry today is written in free form.
2. Is rhyme as a poetic tool still as relevant today as in the past?
As a poetic tool, yes it is.
3. Is rhyme an integral part of a verse or merely a tool to render the poem "prettier"?
With poetic dabblers, amateur readers and greeting card composers, rhyme is essential and necessary, no matter how strained or ludicrous or mauldin the result. But experienced poets, teachers and readers know that rhyme when it is utilized poetically can and does achieve results that free verse by its nature cannot. Just as free verse can achieve results that rhyme cannot.

[Pryderi Agni]

I think the decline of rhyme basically reflects the zeitgeist of contemporary society. The fast-paced, time-poor generation that we represent doesn't really favor long-winded monologues (a la Paradise Lost) because of the very fact that it waxes prolix, searching hither and thither for an appropriate rhyming scheme. Simplicity is lost when one indulges in rhyme, something the proponents of free verse know very well.

Speaking from a subjective perspective, I've tried writing in rhyme, but found it inconvenient. If we construe poetry as an attempt at expressing the flow of emotions ('stream-of-consciousness', if you will), then the mere mention of rhyme will render your expression incomplete (imagine looking for a rhyme to 'orange').

[tailor STATELY]

mélange ? - I guess it only works if 'orange' is pronounced as the French pronounce it, n'est pas?

[Alexander III]

I’m sorry but I must disagree with your statement Pryderi, I believe rhyme in a way enhances my flow of emotion when writing verse. I personally do not find that it binds or constrains my imagination, in fact I believe it's melodies some how enhance the stream of emotion within the poem. Of course my opinion is naturally biased as I am not a fan of free verse which dominates contemporary poetry.

As for the "orange" I would most liley re arange the order of wording so that orange would not be the final word of the line.

[Pryderi Agni]

I’m sorry but I must disagree with your statement Pryderi, I believe rhyme in a way enhances my flow of emotion when writing verse. I personally do not find that it binds or constrains my imagination, in fact I believe it's melodies some how enhance the stream of emotion within the poem. Of course my opinion is naturally biased as I am not a fan of free verse which dominates contemporary poetry.

As for the "orange" I would most liley re arange the order of wording so that orange would not be the final word of the line.

Yeah, but that last part is just the weakness I was trying to show you. You'd have to rearrange the whole word order, turn the whole thing on its head, so to speak. That's where free verse is more efficient.

IMO, rhyme=:crash:

[hack]

I find that the constraint that rhyme (or haiku for that matter) imposes can provide a kind of focus that I can use to my advantage. I don't know if the finished product is better or worse for it, but that is my experience. I am not well versed in the scholarly intricacies of poetry. I only know what moves me when I read it.

[stlukesguild]

I largely agree with Jermac's comments upon the question of Rhyme... which has been around forever.

1. Is rhyme as a poetic tool becoming an unfashionable trend?

I think that generally in the last fifty years, so-called free verse has become the dominant "trend." That's not to say that rhyme has been forgotten, it's just that most poetry today is written in free form.

This may certainly be so... but in a sense I find that free verse is like abstraction in painting or atonalism in music... it is one more possibility available to the artist. As a result, where almost all poets would have written in rhyme... or at least within a strict formal measure... there are now other possibilities. There are still any number of poets who utilize rhyme and formal meter.

2. Is rhyme as a poetic tool still as relevant today as in the past?

As a poetic tool, yes it is.

Certainly. One might just as well ask if melody or harmony are just as relevant to music or figuration just as relevant to painting. Every formal tool at the artist's disposal is as relevant as the use it is put to by artists. As long as some poets continue to employ rhyme and do so in works of real merit... rhyme will remain a valuable tool and relevant.

3. Is rhyme an integral part of a verse or merely a tool to render the poem "prettier"?

With poetic dabblers, amateur readers and greeting card composers, rhyme is essential and necessary, no matter how strained or ludicrous or mauldin the result. But experienced poets, teachers and readers know that rhyme when it is utilized poetically can and does achieve results that free verse by its nature cannot. Just as free verse can achieve results that rhyme cannot.

Exactly! Any element of art can be employed in a superficial manner that amounts to little more than "perfuming" or "prettifying" the work. Any of the same elements can be employed in a manner that strengthens the work and heightens the experience.

[quasimodo1]

My evaluation of rhyme in contemporary poetry is that it enhances the meaning of certain poems. You might compare it to an organ stop which can be pulled to change the sound of fugue and then put back in to while yet another stop is pulled out. T.S.Eliot uses rhyme sporadically and strategically to enhance a concept or description. Poems of classic form are beautifully rhymed but you sometimes get the impression that the flow of a poem becomes a bit arbitrary in order to conform to a rhymed format.

[stlukesguild]

I think the decline of rhyme basically reflects the zeitgeist of contemporary society. The fast-paced, time-poor generation that we represent doesn't really favor long-winded monologues (a la Paradise Lost)

How much less time do we have than Milton's peers? From what I recall, the work day in the past was far longer than it is today, travel an arduous ordeal... even for the well-heeled, etc... I suspect that there are far more people today with more free time on their hands than almost ever. The reality is that monologues like those of Milton (who by the way did not employ Rhyme in Paradise Lost) were never popular with the masses. Certain more challenging forms of literature almost always have a limited audience.

...because of the very fact that it waxes prolix, searching hither and thither for an appropriate rhyming scheme. Simplicity is lost when one indulges in rhyme, something the proponents of free verse know very well.

Since when is "simplicity" the inherent goal of all writing? Poetry is greatly indebted to music... to song. It has a "music" all its own. Just as a composer may be limited by the key and the meter or rhythm as to what notes he or she may employ in order to maintain the music, so the same holds true to the poet... especially to the poet employing a formal meter or rhyme. These limitations, however, become sources of strength in the hands of a good poet.

If we construe poetry as an attempt at expressing the flow of emotions

Who construes poetry as such?:confused: This is but a single possibility as to what poetry is or may be and has little to do with much that is poetry.

('stream-of-consciousness', if you will), then the mere mention of rhyme will render your expression incomplete

Simply spewing forth one's thoughts is not poetry... simply expressing oneself is not art. Art presumes that thoughts and perceptions have been given an aesthetic form. If I wish to compose a poem relating my feelings of sadness following some loss I need not compose the whole in the moment. I may spend weeks... months seeking the perfect form... the perfect words... to convey my thoughts.

(imagine looking for a rhyme to 'orange').

Knowing that "orange" has no rhyme in English I'd probably not employ it as the final word in a line. If... however... I felt that it was a necessity to do so... (for what reason, who can tell)... I'd have no problem with employing a half-rhyme such as "large" or "strange".

Speaking from a subjective perspective, I've tried writing in rhyme, but found it inconvenient.

...free verse is more efficient.

What does efficiency and convenience have to do with any artistic creation? Certainly it would have been far more convenient for Dickens to exclaim, "poverty sucks" and be done with it... rather than waste his time on developing plots and characters, etc... to convey the same idea. Or perhaps it just may be that art... like life itself... is far more about the journey than the destination. The music and the sheer pleasure in words and language and imagery and metaphors are central to what poetry is all about.

Thomas Disch, in his book The Castle of Indolence wrote that a great many poets today... especially in the US... embrace the notion of laziness as if it were an artistic necessity. They imagine poetry to be mere self-expression... the most democratic of arts... far more than Whitman could ever have imagined. Poetry is merely prose organized in such a way that it merely appears "pretty" or more "shapely". Disch referred to this notion of poetry without any thought to form (which is worlds away from Witman's or Wallace Stevens' or William Carlos Williams' use of "free verse" as "snapped prose" which he critiqued appropriately enough... in his own example of the same:

Take any piece of prose you like
and snap it into lines of verse
like this, using the end of the line

as a kind of comma. You can create
a further sense of shapeliness
by grouping the snapped prose in stanzas, so.

[quasimodo1]

Stlukesguild, as usual, makes precise (and correct) observations about rhyme and it's use in contemporary poetry. The older type of scholarship and criticism expected a higher "standard" from the poet. Consider this type of microscopic examination of Emily Dickinson's use of rhyme. "from "Positive as sound: Emily Dickinson's rhyme" by Judy Small (excerpt) "Susan Miles argued in 1925 that

Dickinson's technical irregularities are artistically valuable in mirroring 'a cleft and unmatching world';

partial rhymes, she believed are a means of implying 'defeat, incongruity, suspense, failure, struggle,

frustration, disillusion, thwarting, disruption, or escape'. Gay Wilson Allen wrote in 1935, however, that

Dickinson was 'simply careless in composing the verse and too indifferent to revise it carefully afterward'.

George Frisbie Whicher, similarly, in 1939 found 'no subtlety of intention', merely an unwillingness to let

'the bonds of rhyme...cause her to bend her thoughts'. Carelessness of poetic form iis a fairly serious

charge to bring against a poet, and it is not surprising that admirers of Dickinson have persisted in

defending her approach, all more or less along the lines originally set forth by Miles. Frederic Carpenter

has claimed that the unorthodox rhymes suggest the 'imperfect correspondence' between dreams and harsh

reality. Henry Wells, while admitting that there is 'no simple formula' still holds that 'in the richly

modulated music of her lyrics, full rhyme may be compared to the musician's indecision, pensiveness, quiet

grief, or spiritual numbness'. Charles Anderson argues that 'Exact correspondences of sound could not convey

the dissonances that reached her ears from a fractured universe, though she could use them in moments of

renewed faith or as ironic musical symbols of a world whose orderliness was illusory". --- http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=iWH-

OXgwkDoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=rhyme+in+poetry&ots=dcYZBZc5Cf&sig=d870ugEuonmiQtrh4VbFqzQCf80#v=onepage&q=rhyme%

20in%20poetry&f=false

/ Contemporary poets confronted by this exacting standard of excellence would be apalled and intimidated. The comment about Dickinson "bending her thoughts" to achieve a rhymed scheme is on point, in my opinion.

[quasimodo1]

A Fit of Rhyme against Rhyme -- by Ben Jonson

Rhyme, the rack of finest wits,
That expresseth but by fits
True conceit,
Spoiling senses of their treasure,
Cozening judgment with a measure,
But false weight;
Wresting words from their true calling,
Propping verse for fear of falling
To the ground;
Jointing syllabes, drowning letters,
Fast'ning vowels as with fetters
They were bound!
Soon as lazy thou wert known,
All good poetry hence was flown,
And art banish'd.
For a thousand years together
All Parnassus' green did wither,
And wit vanish'd.
Pegasus did fly away,
At the wells no Muse did stay,
But bewail'd
So to see the fountain dry,
And Apollo's music die,
All light failed!
Starveling rhymes did fill the stage;
Not a poet in an age
Worth crowning;
Not a work deserving bays,
Not a line deserving praise,
Pallas frowning;
Greek was free from rhyme's infection,
Happy Greek by this protection
Was not spoiled.
Whilst the Latin, queen of tongues,
Is not yet free from rhyme's wrongs,
But rests foiled.
Scarce the hill again doth flourish,
Scarce the world a wit doth nourish
To restore
Phoebus to his crown again,
And the Muses to their brain,
As before.
Vulgar languages that want
Words and sweetness, and be scant
Of true measure,
Tyrant rhyme hath so abused,
That they long since have refused
Other cæsure. .... {excerpt}

[JBI]

For St. Lukes on Milton's time - our time sense is different, in that we have a clock - time zones weren't even begun to be established until the 1860s even, which puts things into perspective - each train company used to run on its own watch.

But I think the more important thing is that in Milton's time, people still believed the world could end at any minute, whereas I think only fundamentalists believe that now.



Rhyme as a device works if it is done right. It is less relevant than before, in that there is far more available to poets to utilize than before, but it still is possible, as it has been in English since the beginning, to write without it.

Most poets don't favor it, because, quite frankly, they prefer other devices. Seriously though, there is always an exception - things have just come to the point where for lyric poetry, rhyme is more the exception than the rule - that's the shift. As for the debate between form and open-form, that is kind of a waste of time designed at getting certain poets promotion. I think most people just believe to each poet his/her own.

[Red-Headed]

I think that rhyming has fallen out of fashion for a variety of reasons, notwithstanding that most of them have been done to death. As a language English isn't that conducive to rhyme anyway. Milton felt that he had to apologise for not rhyming Paradise Lost & G.M. Hopkins' theories about rhyme & sprung & outstanding rhythm are very interesting. His view on metre is that in common English only two metric feet are really possible: The accentual trochee & dactyl. These can be combined to create logaoedic rhythm. Repetitive other ‘feet’ are interspersed between. This gives an effect that he called ‘counterpoint’ (from the musical term). He believed that Milton was the true master of this rhythm, particularly in the choruses of his Sampson Agonistes. Most Anglo-Saxon verse was alliterative, probably because of the many grammatical inflectives extant in the language at that time making rhyming a tad more difficult than say Latin or any other Romance language. However, there are more rhyme forms than many people realise, including masculine & feminine forms (one syllable & two syllable rhymes respectively). Rhyme forms include: Monorhyme, Triple Rhyme, Double-End Rhyme, Multirhyme, Internal Rhyme, Leonine Rhyme, Eye Rhyme, Rime Riche, Pararhyme, Assonance, Consonance, Broken Rhyme, Grotesque Rhyme, Synthetic Rhyme, Pruned Rhyme, Back-Track Rhyme, First-Word Rhyme & Skeltonic.

[quasimodo1]

"Most poets don't favor it, because, quite frankly, they prefer other devices. Seriously though, there is always an exception - things have just come to the point where for lyric poetry, rhyme is more the exception than the rule - that's the shift. As for the debate between form and open-form, that is kind of a waste of time designed at getting certain poets promotion. I think most people just believe to each poet his/her own." .......Have to agree with these statements. The bar hasn't been lowered; the whole game has evolved. The contemporary poets who use rhyme add it to accentuate or modulate their theme. In a solid piece of contemporary poetry, when one discovers a rhyming sequence or two, it stands out and can be a kind of poetic explative, sometimes for emphasis, other times as diversion or even mild comic relief. It's use says nothing necessarily about the discipline of the writer. Skillful employment is key.

[stlukesguild]

But I think the more important thing is that in Milton's time, people still believed the world could end at any minute, whereas I think only fundamentalists believe that now.

I'm not certain that notions of Armageddon are as rare as you suppose. The difference, though, is that older era believed in the certainty that at any moment God would unleash this destruction upon the world. We live with the distinct possibility that at any moment mankind might itself unleash an Apocalypse no less destructive. This may lead to an even greater anxiety for we now realize that this power is in the hands of some rather less-than-perfect "Gods".

Rhyme as a device works if it is done right. It is less relevant than before, in that there is far more available to poets to utilize than before, but it still is possible, as it has been in English since the beginning, to write without it.

Exactly. It might do good to recognize that rhyme was not an element... at least not commonly from what I know... of classical poetry.

Most poets don't favor it, because, quite frankly, they prefer other devices. Seriously though, there is always an exception - things have just come to the point where for lyric poetry, rhyme is more the exception than the rule - that's the shift.

Certainly, this may be so of poetry written in English. There are other bodies of literature where rhyme is still quite common... but I agree, it is but one device among many available to the poet.

As for the debate between form and open-form, that is kind of a waste of time designed at getting certain poets promotion. I think most people just believe to each poet his/her own.

I don't think there's a debate of "free-form" or "open-form" vs the use of formal meter and/or rhyme. There are masterful examples of each to be found... even among older poets such as Whitman, Rimbaud, and even Baudelaire. I think that the "lazy" poets of which Disch speaks specifically are any number of those endless graduates of American university creative writing departments that lack even the understanding of how meter or rhyme works and as such they don't employ breaks in line or other elements for any real reason. By way of an analogy with music it would certainly benefit the contemporary composer to understand elements such as harmony and counterpoint even if he or she chooses not to employ them... for the simple reason of understanding how these elements affect the work... and what the result is when they are not used for a conscious purpose. Within my own discipline of painting most painters of any real merit understand perspective, and how to dtraw or paint with a degree of "realism"... even if they eventually choose not to employ these elements. Such skills give a greater understanding of the mechanics of how painting works as a whole which is just as useful to abstraction, and act as one more tool within the artist's arsenal.

[stlukesguild]

The bar hasn't been lowered; the whole game has evolved.

Perhaps. But then again... are the poets writing in English today... especially in the US... on the same level as those from the first half of the 20th century? Who can stand along side of T.S. Eliot, Hart Crane, Robert Frost, Wallace Stevens, William Carlos Williams, Ezra Pound, etc... Art is ever an evolution... but it also must be admitted that some eras are far more productive of true artistic masterpieces than others... for whatever reason. With the possible exception of early Modernism (1870s-1930s) no era in history can compete with the achievements in painting, sculpture, and architecture wrought during the Renaissance. The Baroque was a towering era in painting (Rembrandt, Vermeer, Rubens, Velasquez) followed by the Rococo which amounted largely to paintings as slightly risque cake decoration. Of course it may just be that the artistic genius of one era or another finds its outlets in different cultures... or different artistic forms. While Boucher and Fragonard were painting their creme puffs Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, C.P.E. Bach, Rossini, and young Beethoven were writing music that was anything but frilly and lightweight.:confused:

[mortalterror]

The Baroque was a towering era in painting (Rembrandt, Vermeer, Rubens, Velasquez)Caravaggio

While Boucher and Fragonard were painting their creme puffs Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, C.P.E. Bach, Rossini, and young Beethoven were writing music that was anything but frilly and lightweight.
I like Boucher and Fragonard. I like David too. If their work is frilly and lightweight then what must Cézanne's apples be?

[JBI]

The bar hasn't been lowered; the whole game has evolved.

Perhaps. But then again... are the poets writing in English today... especially in the US... on the same level as those from the first half of the 20th century? Who can stand along side of T.S. Eliot, Hart Crane, Robert Frost, Wallace Stevens, William Carlos Williams, Ezra Pound, etc... Art is ever an evolution... but it also must be admitted that some eras are far more productive of true artistic masterpieces than others... for whatever reason. With the possible exception of early Modernism (1870s-1930s) no era in history can compete with the achievements in painting, sculpture, and architecture wrought during the Renaissance. The Baroque was a towering era in painting (Rembrandt, Vermeer, Rubens, Velasquez) followed by the Rococo which amounted largely to paintings as slightly risque cake decoration. Of course it may just be that the artistic genius of one era or another finds its outlets in different cultures... or different artistic forms. While Boucher and Fragonard were painting their creme puffs Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, C.P.E. Bach, Rossini, and young Beethoven were writing music that was anything but frilly and lightweight.:confused:

Perhaps that is an American problem - if generations of decline exist, they do not exist universally, and it can be argued that it is a very rare historical situation that creates an atmosphere of no good art being produced.

I can think of, for instance 10 excellent American poets of the 1960s and 70s, and probably squeeze a few more good ones into the 80s = as time comes closer, it becomes harder to understand the moment, but I am pretty sure I could come up with at least 5 great poets writing now in the States.

But really, there is no point going there - history will decide everything, and that is one geographic region.

In English there are many poets alive to rival the ones mentioned. The one poet for me in that group anyway, who stands above the rest as one of the greatest ever would be Eliot, and he is probably the hardest to top, but even then, why don't we compare Pound, H.D., Tate, and others from that era, and ignore the odd eccentric genius who happened to pop up at the right time, with the right mental instability and depressive nature to speak for a generation.


Also, I would note form has changed. To me, reading mostly Canadian poetry, I have come to realize that the most dominant form seems to be the anthology itself. Like earlier models, such as Petrarch's Canzoniere, Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience, Wordsworth and Coleridge's Lyrical Ballads, and Herbert's The Temple, the form of anthology seems to be the one that dominates.

I think this has much to do with the general disappearance of rhyme and form as commonplace, in that the anthology form has been created to substitute form, or at least work as a form of its own. Poetry to me seems more conscious of itself as a written form to be read now, rather than before, and as such, much of the technique right now used seems to echo techniques of reading rather than the classical techniques of oratory that essentially defined classical and Renaissance poetry. Take Sidney's Defense for instance - it seems to compare poetry and understand it as a form of rhetoric that can be read in the classical models of rhetoric. Gascoigne's essay on poetry also suggests a certain view. In truth, that probably defined poetry until the 19th century, which would explain many things.

I have heard the argument that poetry is now "overheard rather than heard." Perhaps that is true, but what seems to me to make sense, is that poetry now is more of a written form of expression, where the act of physically putting things on the page, and arrangement as text seem to change.

Perhaps that explains a sudden upsurge in verse novels and things - I don't know - the form itself of anthology seems to have endless possibility - I myself am currently toying with one idea. Take for instance Anne Carson's Small Talks as an example - each talk acts alone, but the whole book kind of speaks to itself throughout.


Of course, there are modernist examples as well - Four Quartets being a particularly good one. Of course, this is all my speculation, but I think it holds a little ground - no longer is poetry written in classical forms, or as rhetoric, or oratory, but it would seem now to arrange itself more into anthology form, and also be more directly conscious of other poems.

Also, it may be worth noting the abundance of poems beginning with epigraphs from other works (this technique also seems to have invaded novels and works of scholarship). Just think how text-heavy the understanding of poetry now has become. The whole "one long argument" concept of poetry seems to have become the general understanding.

[Dinkleberry2010]

Rhyme was a relatively late development in poetry: to wit, neither The Iliad nor Beowulf contains rhyme. Then there came a time when rhyme rose up and became dominant, and it maintained that dominance for centuries even when poets such as Rimbaud and Whitman began to compose in so-called free verse in the nineteenth century. It wasn't until the 1950s when the Beat poets such as Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti pretty much made free verse dominant that rhyme was "dethroned" (even though great poets such as Frost continued to utilize it). Whether you like it or not, free verse is dominant, and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

[JBI]

Rhyme was a relatively late development in poetry: to wit, neither The Iliad nor Beowulf contains rhyme. Then there came a time when rhyme rose up and became dominant, and it maintained that dominance for centuries even when poets such as Rimbaud and Whitman began to compose in so-called free verse in the nineteenth century. It wasn't until the 1950s when the Beat poets such as Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti pretty much made free verse dominant that rhyme was "dethroned" (even though great poets such as Frost continued to utilize it). Whether you like it or not, free verse is dominant, and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

Not exactly true - maybe a late development in Western poetry, but it is prevalent more in other cultures. Chinese, for example, seems to be quite rhyme heavy. Beyond that too, it depends on genre - rhyme, if anything, is a lyric poetic device more so than epic, and perhaps has some place in drama.

Also, language has much to do with it - I think French rhymes more because rhyme is more structurally relevant in French - it makes for a stronger coherency and defined line brake. In Italian too, but that whole language rhymes easily, so it was almost inevitable that a sort of syllabic-rhyme metre would take the front.

[Red-Headed]

Rhyme was a relatively late development in poetry: to wit, neither The Iliad nor Beowulf contains rhyme.

Interestingly, both were written in alliterative dactylic hexameter.

[Jozanny]

luke, I am sorry to disagree, but I do, even though I have not fully remarried myself to the small presses yet, because I need to freelance. But
1. Kinsella did not like me much, nor I him, but where we both agreed during our fatal interaction was that poetry has changed its function, and you seem unable to accept this even though you may recognize it.
2. I actually believe some of my academic and successful contempories are better poets than Eliot, as they are not so much decrying the cracks of the edifice as working within the cracks, although someone like Armitage has his finger on the current throbs in our pulse, and from the little of his work that I have read, like Frost, he is admirably conscious of his craft without imprisoning himself within it, which is my problem with Yeats--(another issue).

That we have no Eliot for the 21st century, unless it be Armitage (his popularity in England cannot be argued with, and I can see why) points more to the realities of the modern genre than any decline. People read ME luke, as poor and unestablished as I am I have a fan club and a small press reputation. Everyone reads poetry, and not many less write it. The secular priesthood has vanished, and that is what you're missing.

[Petrarch's Love]

Pardon me if my comment is ignorant as I have a limited experience with poetry but is it just me or is rhyme as a poetic tool appearing to have become an unfashionable trend. Most modern poetry I have seen( albeit I have seen little) appears to have forgone rhyme.

Furthermore I am interested in your opinions on rhyme as a poetic tool, is it still as relevant today as in the past? Is it an integral part of verse or merely a tool to render the poem "prettier"?

To the first part of your question, is rhyme relevant? I would suggest that this may not be the relevent question to ask as a poet. Yes, certainly it is important to write something that speaks to one's own time and that is relevant to people reading today, but finding that relevant voice is not necessarily tied to any one poetic tool. There have been countless times in the history of poetry and other arts when tools that seemed outdated have been employed by poets in new or fresh ways or integrated into more recent innovations and enabled a poet to speak powerfully and relevantly to his or her own times. The goal is to develop a voice that speaks to people using whatever tools will help you as a poet do that, not to use only what seems to be "in" or dismiss what is "out." What works for each writer for achieving the goal of reaching others will be different, but it is probably a good idea for young writers to experiment with lots of different tools and techniques and discover what really helps him or her to speak with the clearest voice rather than trying to follow what should be relevant.

I would also hasten to add that in a culture in which huge numbers of people are attracted to songs and verbal art forms such as rap/hip hop which are deeply rhyme dependent, it seems strange to me to suggest that rhyme could not be a feature of poetry that might speak to our own times. As I've commented elsewhere, I don't know that I've ever heard rap lyrics I think are going to be lasting art, but I see no reason that really great art couldn't emerge from that kind of tradition any more than it could from a follower of free verse.

As to the second questions--is rhyme integral to verse or a tool to make poems "prettier"--I think none of the above. No, rhyme is not integral to verse in general, though it is an integral part of some poems. Yes, rhyme is a tool, but I wouldn't say its primary benefit is a superficial ability to make a poem "pretty," though I suppose that could be one effect. It can be a structural tool, a device, like repetition, that makes lines easier to remember/more memorable, a tool for linking the ideas and themes expressed in the two rhyming words, a tool for emphasis or closure (as in Shakespeare's use of rhyming couplets to end scenes), a tool for conveying humor or other various tones, etc.....


...Speaking from a subjective perspective, I've tried writing in rhyme, but found it inconvenient. If we construe poetry as an attempt at expressing the flow of emotions ('stream-of-consciousness', if you will), then the mere mention of rhyme will render your expression incomplete (imagine looking for a rhyme to 'orange').


...Skillful employment is key.

I've juxtoposed these two remarks because I think that "skill" is a key word for this discussion. As quasi points out, skillful employment is key to writing good rhyming poetry as it is key to writing any poetry. One thing that writing in rhyme, fixed meter, alliterative, or any other sort of set form can do for a poet that a free, stream of consciousness style of poem cannot, however, is that it will force the writer to consciously hone his or her skills. As Pryderi Agni suggests, rhyme can be "inconvenient" to a writer. Another way of viewing this, however, might be that it presents a challenge to the writer, forces him or her to play around with the words, change things to work, think harder about where to place the words, how to place them, what word is rubbing up against another in a way that works or does not. One advantage to the writer of really engaging with rhyme or any other formal tool of poetry is that it will help him or her to develop some serious control over his or her use of words. Writing out free-form "stream of consciousness" style poetry can also be productive in that it allows for a lot of play with language, but it won't force a writer to reflect as carefully on things like word choice or even the sound of words together. Developing the kind of control over language that enables someone to write a really skillful formal poem--whether this means rhyme, blank verse, or any other slightly inconvenient or challenging formal tool--can really help them to deploy their language more effectively in whatever kind of poetry they choose to write just as (as I believe St. Luke's suggested above) a deep knowledge of how to work with the formal aspects of music--scales, counterpoint, harmony--will give a musician or composer greater control over his or her sound.

[JBI]

luke, I am sorry to disagree, but I do, even though I have not fully remarried myself to the small presses yet, because I need to freelance. But
1. Kinsella did not like me much, nor I him, but where we both agreed during our fatal interaction was that poetry has changed its function, and you seem unable to accept this even though you may recognize it.
2. I actually believe some of my academic and successful contempories are better poets than Eliot, as they are not so much decrying the cracks of the edifice as working within the cracks, although someone like Armitage has his finger on the current throbs in our pulse, and from the little of his work that I have read, like Frost, he is admirably conscious of his craft without imprisoning himself within it, which is my problem with Yeats--(another issue).

That we have no Eliot for the 21st century, unless it be Armitage (his popularity in England cannot be argued with, and I can see why) points more to the realities of the modern genre than any decline. People read ME luke, as poor and unestablished as I am I have a fan club and a small press reputation. Everyone reads poetry, and not many less write it. The secular priesthood has vanished, and that is what you're missing.

The concept of not having an Eliot is kind of flawed - maybe England doesn't have one, but, for instance, I think Walcott fills a gap nicely for the West Indies. Even then though, the figurehead structure - that is, the Virgillian and Homeric model of supreme poet, isn't particularly relevant. The Victorian era produced many great poets, for instance, and are we going to say, for instance, Tennyson reigns supreme, or are we going to say Browning, or whomever? Strangely enough, it can be argued that even once these poets gained their reputation, especially Tennyson, they suffered major declines.

Even so though, it should be noted that the truer mark of a good "generation" or movement seems to be rooted in many poets, not just one - besides which, the whole division of history into movements is kind of fishy to me - it implies a sort of breakage. That is why the notion of post-modernism, or post-post-modernism or even modernism seems stupid. The whole notion of modernity seems like a whole nonsensical study.

Take for instance modernity as implied over other geographic spaces.

In Japan you have Soseki writing modernity, and describing it sort of as a Western injection of technology forcing a break from the past, and a sort of displacement of people, where they don't fit into the world any more (this is best shown in his novel Kokoro).

When you take the concept of modernity and imply it elsewhere though, it takes on another form - Meng Yue argues, for instance, that modernity in the case of Shanghai was a cross between retranslation from the west through Japanese, real estate and finance, prostitution, and opium. In the "West" it seems to be tied to mechanization of life, culminating in the military technological advancements introduced in the First World War.

But where is the line - as I mentioned before, time wasn't structured until the 1860s, and that is when the concept of time began to standardize - Benjamin writes about mechanization and text, and dies in the forties, and we seem to see the whole world as becoming sort of meaningless throughout the introduction of industry until Eliot.

But is there a clean break? I somehow doubt it.

What I mean to say is, all this style and modernity and junk is kind of a small-minded way of viewing things - it's far better to just look at rhyme as a device, and understand how it works, and how some people employ it, either ironically or purposefully.

I am not going to lie St. Lukes, but your general rants about how we are in a decadent period are kind of getting tiring - I see no signs that poetry has declined, much less that we are in a specific "period". Perhaps the US is on the downslide in terms of arts now - you would know more about that than me, but as for art being better or worse, that's for the history textbooks to decide - I see around me in poets I read great work, notably in Carson, Elliott Clarke, and others works of enduring genius - fiction, I would think has come to a peak already, but is literature really better or worse now?

Perhaps its the acceptance of certain poets into American curriculum that bothers you - I have nothing to do with that, I neither focus my education in the US, or desire to - all I can see is that the verse moves forward, and there are a wide range of writers from a wide range of traditions in a wide range of languages, and many of them happen to be excellent. Beyond that too, translation has, it can be argued, developed quite a bit in the last few years, and old classics from other traditions have begun to surface in greater number and style. Our concept of the world in literature, or at least mine, seems greater than that of the generation before. I would think if anything this is a particularly good time.

[JBI]

To the first part of your question, is rhyme relevant? I would suggest that this may not be the relevent question to ask as a poet. Yes, certainly it is important to write something that speaks to one's own time and that is relevant to people reading today, but finding that relevant voice is not necessarily tied to any one poetic tool. There have been countless times in the history of poetry and other arts when tools that seemed outdated have been employed by poets in new or fresh ways or integrated into more recent innovations and enabled a poet to speak powerfully and relevantly to his or her own times. The goal is to develop a voice that speaks to people using whatever tools will help you as a poet do that, not to use only what seems to be "in" or dismiss what is "out." What works for each writer for achieving the goal of reaching others will be different, but it is probably a good idea for young writers to experiment with lots of different tools and techniques and discover what really helps him or her to speak with the clearest voice rather than trying to follow what should be relevant.

I would also hasten to add that in a culture in which huge numbers of people are attracted to songs and verbal art forms such as rap/hip hop, it seems strange to me to suggest that rhyme could not be a feature of poetry that might speak to our own times. As I've commented elsewhere, I don't know that I've ever heard rap lyrics I think are going to be lasting art, but I see no reason that really great art couldn't emerge from that kind of tradition any more than it could from a follower of free verse.

As to the second questions--is rhyme integral to verse or a tool to make poems "prettier"--I think none of the above. No, rhyme is not integral to verse in general, though it is an integral part of some poems. Yes, rhyme is a tool, but I wouldn't say it's primary benefit is a superficial ability to make a poem "pretty," though I suppose that could be one effect. It can be a structural tool, a device, like repetition, that makes lines easier to remember/more memorable, a tool for linking the ideas and themes expressed in the two rhyming words, a tool for emphasis or closure (as in Shakespeare's use of rhyming couplets to end scenes), a tool for conveying humor or other various tones, etc.....





I've juxtoposed these two remarks because I think that "skill" is a key word for this discussion. As quasi points out, skillful employment is key to writing good rhyming poetry as it is key to writing any poetry. One thing that writing in rhyme, fixed meter, alliterative, or any other sort of set form can do for a poet that a free, stream of consciousness style of poem cannot, however, is that it will force the writer to consciously hone his or her skills. As Pryderi Agni suggests, rhyme can be "inconvenient" to a writer. Another way of viewing this, however, might be that it presents a challenge to the writer, forces him or her to play around with the words, change things to work, think harder about where to place the words, how to place them, what word is working up against another in a way that works or does not. One advantage to the writer of really engaging with rhyme or any other formal tool of poetry is that it will help him or her to develop some serious control over his or her use of words. Writing out free-form "stream of consciousness" style poetry can also be productive in that it allows for a lot of play with language, but it won't force a writer to reflect as carefully on things like word choice or even the sound of words together. Developing the kind of control over language that enables someone to write a really skillful formal poem--whether this means rhyme, blank verse, or any other slightly inconvenient or challenging formal tool--can really help them to deploy their language more effectively in whatever kind of poetry they choose to write just as (as I believe St. Luke's suggested above) a deep knowledge of how to work with the formal aspects of music--scales, counterpoint, harmony--will give a musician or composer greater control over his or her sound.

It is interesting to note though, that now writing in rhymed verses seems to be a more conscious decision - before it seemed that was normal, now it seems that when you write in form, you are consciously deciding that you want your poem to be written in form - at least, that is how I interpret things, and I think stuff has gone to a point where the very forms we use seem to be ironized more often than not when used today. I think it is hard to write a Ballade for instance, without ironizing the form - even Bishop's great Sestina seems to gesture to a bit of irony, especially with her world choice for the endings.

The question of pretty is a false one too - if anything it adds more structure, not more beauty. Each rhyme scheme seems to have a very purposeful effect on the way things are read. Elegiac stanzas have a certain quality - that quality can be manipulated, and adapted or innovated, etc. The question of form has nothing to do with prettiness, unless it deliberately chooses to be pretty.

You can tell better than I how Spenser, for instance, deliberately uses bad poetry ironically in the Faerie Queene as a sort of pun - at the same time though, he uses the form to write very great poetry. As a poet, he seems to be one who was excellent at manipulating the forms in which he was writing in. One thing can be learned though, that the form itself isn't good or bad, but the handling - I can only think of two or three other works that can use Spenserian Stanzas well besides Spenser - being works of Keats and Shelley - Shelley's being a bit lame on the style side because of it, given that he adapted the form for a philosophical, rather than narrative poem.

What all this means really, is that as a poet, one needs to figure out exactly what works for them, and act accordingly - to do this, one writes everything. There is a general idea that open-form poetry seems to be less structured - that is doubtful, only bad poetry acts like that. There is a structure and confinement in all poetry, even if it is radical poetry like that of Erin Moure. Everybody knows though, if they read poetry, that there is still constraint on form, in that poetry itself needs to function with intent, and if that intent is going to be met, effort will be put in.

[stlukesguild]

I like Boucher and Fragonard. I like David too. If their work is frilly and lightweight then what must Cézanne's apples be?

At their best I think that Boucher, Fragonard, and Watteau brought a sensuous joy in the touch and tactile nature of paint and a certain spontaneity and lightness that would be later employed to greater results by the Impressionists... and even painters such as Bonnard and Matisse. Compared to Rubens, Caravaggio, Rembrandt, etc... they are rather lacking... both in terms of gravitas... but also on a purely formal level.

As for Cezanne... well you put me a a rather difficult position here. I agree somewhat with Camille Paglia's response to Cezanne in that he strikes me as something of the poster boy for the puritan work ethic applied to art. He was almost a ham-fisted duffer but simply kept at it... forcing the work to eventually come to an end of some real merit. I appreciate the sense of time that is infused in the work and understand how the paintings insert an approach to human vision that will certainly be the roots of Cubism... but I'm not a huge lover of Analytical Cubism myself and feel somewhat that Picasso went off track following Braque and Cezanne's lead... rather than sticking with the raw and explosive possibilities already developed in Les Demoiselles D'Avignon which he would only return to later... and in full force in a painting such as Guernica.

[stlukesguild]

1. Kinsella did not like me much, nor I him, but where we both agreed during our fatal interaction was that poetry has changed its function, and you seem unable to accept this even though you may recognize it.

Poetry has changed its function? In what way? This strikes me as a generalism that assumes that the majority of poetry once had a common function that has changed at present. What possible function did William Blake share with Jonathan Swift? I'm far more interested in the achievements of individuals.

2. I actually believe some of my academic and successful contempories are better poets than Eliot...

I doubt that many would agree with you... I certainly don't... but judgment of art of the present is always the most challenging... and I'll grant that you have almost certainly read more contemporary American poetry than I.

[stlukesguild]

I am not going to lie St. Lukes, but your general rants about how we are in a decadent period are kind of getting tiring -

Perhaps no less than your continual rants in support of the "brilliance" of Canadian literature.:rolleyes:

I see no signs that poetry has declined, much less that we are in a specific "period".

Perhaps then you may wish to rethink your notions of becoming a literary critic.:D

Seriously, artistic "periods" are undoubtedly a construct imposed later by academics in order to more easily grasp the work of given era. No one ever really thought of themselves as living in the Elizabethan period (although Modernism may have been far more self-conscious... still I doubt many would agree at the time as to just what Modernism was). Some artistic eras are unquestionable more productive of great art in one form or another than others. It is virtually impossible not to recognize the explosive artistic fecundity of the Renaissance or early Modernism. The notion that we... at least within the US... are living in an era to rival prior peaks is simply wishful thinking. This is not to say that art as a whole has declined... or that there are not the few (and it is always but a few) artists of real merit.

Perhaps the US is on the down-slide in terms of arts now - you would know more about that than me, but as for art being better or worse, that's for the history textbooks to decide...

Certainly. And history will indeed decide.

I see around me in poets I read great work, notably in Carson, Elliott Clarke, and others works of enduring genius - fiction, I would think has come to a peak already, but is literature really better or worse now?

Certainly there are poets of real merit. I would surely include Carson, Geoffrey Hill, Yves Bonnefoy, Seamus Heaney, the recently deceased Rafael Alberti, Czeslaw Milosz, and Anthony Hecht. Are they of the level of Eliot, Stevens, Montale, Pasternak, and Rilke? Intriguing that you question that I suggest that the current crop of poets may not quite come up to the level of earlier giants... and yet you turn around and suggest that fiction... the novel may already have come to a peak... and I recall your repeated denigration of 18th century literature... especially poetry... which would suggest that you have your notions as to which artistic eras are more productive of genius than others.

Perhaps its the acceptance of certain poets into American curriculum that bothers you -

This may indeed be... or more accurately... it may be that I question the recognition afforded to certain middling poets (Maya Angelou? Charles Bukowski? being extreme examples) at the expense of poets who appear far greater in my opinion.

...all I can see is that the verse moves forward, and there are a wide range of writers from a wide range of traditions in a wide range of languages, and many of them happen to be excellent.

And certainly history will decide which of these poets are worthy of lasting recognition. I will admit that there is something oxymoronic to the concept of contemporary literary history or contemporary art history which posits the notion that certain poets or certain artists (or certain composers, etc...) can be clearly seen as the central figures of our time. As you note there are a vast array of traditions... most of which get ignored in the creation of the various provincial concepts of what art most matters. Even looking to the study of early Modernism in literature, how many courses acknowledge the merit of Montale, Umberto Saba, Rilke, Paul Celan, Apollinaire, Paul Valery, Miguel Hernandez, Rafael Alberti, Cesar Vallejo, Vinciente Aleixandre, Boris Pasternak, Osip Mandelstam, Marina Tsvetaeva, Akiko Yosano, Rabindranath Tagore along side of Eliot, Pound, Yeats, Stevens, Frost, etc...?

Beyond that too, translation has, it can be argued, developed quite a bit in the last few years, and old classics from other traditions have begun to surface in greater number and style. Our concept of the world in literature, or at least mine, seems greater than that of the generation before. I would think if anything this is a particularly good time.

Translation... and a growing appreciation for poetry outside of the English-speaking world... even outside of the West... may indeed be the greatest contribution to literature of our time. When I first began to read poetry in translation it was often next to impossible to find good translations of almost any poet outside of the undeniable giants: Homer, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Dante, Petrarch, Goethe, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Garcia-Lorca, Neruda. Many poets needed to be taken on faith. Outside of Western literature the reality was even more bleak. Now we find solid efforts being made to translate poetry from Eastern Europe, Portugal, South America, the Middle-East, China, India, Japan, etc...

[Petrarch's Love]

It is interesting to note though, that now writing in rhymed verses seems to be a more conscious decision - before it seemed that was normal, now it seems that when you write in form, you are consciously deciding that you want your poem to be written in form - at least, that is how I interpret things, and I think stuff has gone to a point where the very forms we use seem to be ironized more often than not when used today. I think it is hard to write a Ballade for instance, without ironizing the form - even Bishop's great Sestina seems to gesture to a bit of irony, especially with her world choice for the endings.

I agree with you that a modern poet employing rhyme may be making a more conscious decision than in the past, or may need to meet a higher standard to get away with it than in, say, the 19th century because it is not widely favored at the moment. As to whether it was always assumed to be normal before, I suppose this may be true of the 18th and 19th centuries. I tend not to think of rhyme as a given historically but I am aware that mine is a unusual perspective in that rhyme was something that was more or less coming into the English tradition across the period I study/partly live in from the late Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was still the topic of some debate among the poets of the 16th century English Renaissance who appear to have been somewhat torn between wanting to follow the example of Petrarch's Canzoniere or that of classical prosody and between the early example of father Chaucer (whom, as you know, Spenser embraced wholly and archaically) and a fear of falling into, to quote Marlowe "jigging veins of rhyming mother wits" with the dreaded rhyming fourteener. While it was partly an age of rhyme, the English Renaissance was also the age of blank verse. T. Campion dedicated a chapter of his Observations in the Art of English Poesie to "declaring the unaptness of rhyme in poesie" and complained, like some on this thread that "[rhyme] enforceth a man oftentimes to abjure his matter and extend a short conceit beyond all bounds of art." He also moaned that because of the proliferation of the use of rhyme in his times "the facility and popularity of rhyme creates as many poets as a hot summer flies," a charge that sounds much like the sort levelled at "free verse" poets in our own times, and possibly indicates that, then and now, this is less a matter of form and more a matter of the number of bad poets attracted along with the good to whatever is the hot mode of the moment. As you may know, this in turn prompted Daniel's Defense of Rhyme in which, among other things, he defended the charge that rhyme distracts a poet from the experession of his ideas or conceit: "Ryme is no impediment to his [the poet's] conceit, rather giues him wings to mount and carries him, not out of his course, but as it were beyond his power to a farre happier flight."


The question of pretty is a false one too - if anything it adds more structure, not more beauty. Each rhyme scheme seems to have a very purposeful effect on the way things are read. Elegiac stanzas have a certain quality - that quality can be manipulated, and adapted or innovated, etc. The question of form has nothing to do with prettiness, unless it deliberately chooses to be pretty.

Agreed.


You can tell better than I how Spenser, for instance, deliberately uses bad poetry ironically in the Faerie Queene as a sort of pun - at the same time though, he uses the form to write very great poetry. As a poet, he seems to be one who was excellent at manipulating the forms in which he was writing in. One thing can be learned though, that the form itself isn't good or bad, but the handling - I can only think of two or three other works that can use Spenserian Stanzas well besides Spenser - being works of Keats and Shelley - Shelley's being a bit lame on the style side because of it, given that he adapted the form for a philosophical, rather than narrative poem.


Absolutely. The number of people who can get away with a form like the Spenserian Stanza (much less write several hundred pages in the form and even be comfortable enough to play around with it) have been few and far between from his time to our own. Any poet can work and get more facility with forms, but there's something extra you've got to be born with to reach the level of a Keats or a Spenser.


What all this means really, is that as a poet, one needs to figure out exactly what works for them, and act accordingly - to do this, one writes everything. There is a general idea that open-form poetry seems to be less structured - that is doubtful, only bad poetry acts like that. There is a structure and confinement in all poetry, even if it is radical poetry like that of Erin Moure. Everybody knows though, if they read poetry, that there is still constraint on form, in that poetry itself needs to function with intent, and if that intent is going to be met, effort will be put in.

I also agree completely with this. As I often say, the poetry that seems the least structured is often in many ways the most difficult to write well. That's why it can be a real advantage to a poet to have practiced writing with a very strict form and develop some skill and control that he or she can employ in a freer form. It's very difficult to go the other way, and perhaps also very difficult, or at least slower, to have written nothing but free verse and to evolve solely within a freer form to a point where it still has the kind of underlying structure that will work. Maybe that's where having that little extra je ne sais quoi that Spenser and Keats had comes in. :D

[Jozanny]

I also agree completely with this. As I often say, the poetry that seems the least structured is often in many ways the most difficult to write well. That's why it can be a real advantage to a poet to have practiced writing with a very strict form and develop some skill and control that he or she can employ in a freer form. It's very difficult to go the other way, and perhaps also very difficult, or at least slower, to have written nothing but free verse and to evolve solely within a freer form to a point where it still has the kind of underlying structure that will work. Maybe that's where having that little extra je ne sais quoi that Spenser and Keats had comes in. :D

I don't know Petrarch, that the best free verse doesn't naturally have its own structure, as I tend to agree with Vonnegut that English, and by extension, all language, naturally carries the biological rhythms of the body. I cannot link to my poetry archive in the online journal Wicked Alice, as the editor is rebuilding the site, but one of my poems she accepted was one of the most difficult for me in terms of conceiving it--not hearing it, but seeing it, and putting the narrative together as a dialectic between personal experience and historical analogy, or states of being corresponding to historical reference. I paid no attention to breaking a sweat over scansion, but normally don't feel I have to, as if the line breaks or wording need work then I work it, and once in awhile things fall into place.

Not a very eloquent theory on writing, to be sure--but I think the phrase free form is a misnomer.

Now, as to luke's objections:

luke, that I think x number of modern poets write better poetry than Eliot is not an extraordinary statement, nor an indicator that I don't like Eliot or his modernist tropes, but some of my colleagues in APR waste him, which is only natural, given what contemporary poets pay attention to, and that is not the collapse of world order, but imagery condensed toward extraordinary impact.

And yes, if an egotist like Kinsella, and a self-effacing disabled woman who was a discordant note in his graduate course about himself when I thought I was taking a survey class at the undergraduate level, can agree in mutual distaste for each other that the function of poetry has changed, I daresay then that it has.

Now whats dat mean?

Did the language change? Not really. Did the writing of poetry change? No, other than in style and technique, but the function, yes. Poetry is no longer the stuff of social cohesion and morally discursive binding that it was for Homer through Milton. In English Literature, a good case can be made that Browning was the last poet who tried to keep poetry competitive as a metaphysical vehicle on par with Kantian concerns. It is that no more, and that is what Eliot embalms.

Poetry today is just a stylistic genre, and we weigh poets on their reputations much as we weigh novelists: This is the marvel of Bishop, or Sexton or Paz does this particular thing in Spanish, and so on.

[Petrarch's Love]

I don't know Petrarch, that the best free verse doesn't naturally have its own structure, as I tend to agree with Vonnegut that English, and by extension, all language, naturally carries the biological rhythms of the body. I cannot link to my poetry archive in the online journal Wicked Alice, as the editor is rebuilding the site, but one of my poems she accepted was one of the most difficult for me in terms of conceiving it--not hearing it, but seeing it, and putting the narrative together as a dialectic between personal experience and historical analogy, or states of being corresponding to historical reference. I paid no attention to breaking a sweat over scansion, but normally don't feel I have to, as if the line breaks or wording need work then I work it, and once in awhile things fall into place.

Not a very eloquent theory on writing, to be sure--but I think the phrase free form is a misnomer.


Hi Joz--Yes, I'll agree with you that you can find a sort of natural underlying structure in free verse and that probably most poetry is fundamentally tied to the rhythms of our own bodies in some way or another. I imagine, however, that we can all agree that all language is not poetry. Poetry makes a special claim upon its reader that ordinary language does not. I was not trying to suggest that a poet writing in a so-called "free form" style (and I agree with you that I don't much care for that term myself because it sets up what is often a false dichotomy between form and free form, but am not sure what else embraces the genre sufficiently) would or should be thinking about things like scansion while composing. I imagine that the composition process at its best for most people is a more intuitive feeling experience than a calculated one. What I was saying was that practice and experience with language is going to sharpen that intuition, make a poet more adept at doing a good job at bringing out the natural structures of language in a way that is moving and effective. Certainly working in free form verse can help provide that kind of practice, and some people who have a very great natural facility with language can work almost exclusively in that vein and coax wonderful things out of it. For many beginning or more amateur poets, however, I think that working with (or against) formal elements in addition to less structured writing will force them to attend to the rhythms of language, the way words work, the focus of their conceit etc. in a way that freer forms cannot. While I can certainly see how a person like yourself who is an experienced and practicing poet can probably sit down and tease things out intuitively in the way you suggest and come out with some good material, I can also see that a would be poet who only writes off the top of his or her head, confident that this is the best way to express what he or she is trying to convey, might really benefit from being forced to wrestle with the challenge of having to shift his or her language to accommodate a formal element like rhyme because that will also force that person to be creative, try new things and up his or her game. So, I wasn't saying that writing structured verse is going to directly train a person to write free verse so much as I was saying that I think writing more structured poetry can sharpen a person's verbal skill in a way that lets that person attend more closely to that natural rhythm of language.

Incidentally, I was just thinking that your view of the writing process might b a bit like Michelangelo's famous views on sculpture. He apparently would talk about the statue being already formed, nascent, within the block of marble. The sculptor's job was simply to uncover the body that lay within it. It's a rather different take on art than one that suggests the artist actively molding and forming the object. You sound perhaps as though you're talking a bit like Michelangelo in terms of sifting through the words to unearth the natural forms of the language lying underneath it all rather than an active molding of words. Either way, of course, it takes a lot of skill and familiarity with the verbal world to either mine or mold anything really good. :nod:

[Jozanny]

Michelangelo, eh? :) Interesting, given my fairly limited study of the classical or formal arts, but oddly I have come to realize that I do visualize my work more than I tune into it, which causes as many problems as it solves, although my poetry has suffered since about 2002 because of a homoerotic trauma that took me some time to ameliorate, cojoined with the practical realities of freelancing.

I do not, however, totally eschew formalism. In modern parlance, which is no reflection on historic classicism, I think both sonnet schemes and the Japanese haiku have been trivialized, but Bishop brought me round to the power of the villanelle, when handled with care, and of course I believe writers should know what the forms are, when applicable, because Dickinson isn't, to my mind, a formal poet. I suppose that could be contended, but creating her work of the hymns of hard New England Protestantism is nearly as many degrees removed from Milton as she might be from the Black Mountain school, though I forget if Milton used blank verse or something else. Horrors.

This really wasn't a major part of my studies back in the ancient times of my course load. I will go Google Milton's form as an act of contrition.

[stlukesguild]

I do not, however, totally eschew formalism.

I wonder if your interpretation of the term "formalism" is at all the same as mine. In no way should formalism be mistaken for classicism or rather a rigid adherence to classical artistic forms. "Formalism"... especially in the visual arts... refers to an art in which there is a clear conscious attention to form and formal elements... and to how they work. Formalism is often thought of as the opposite of Romanticism... the two forming a dichotomy of polar opposites that art swings between. Of course, if one looks at Shelley's Ozymandias or Byron's Don Juan... products of high Romanticism... they might easily be construed as "formalist" in comparison to many works of contemporary poetry.

Returning momentarily to the visual arts, we might take by way of example two different artist from the same time period... the same artistic movements even. In this instance I'll look to French Impressionism and the work of Monet and Degas. Degas clearly falls far more within the formalist realm, while Monet is the romantic. Degas has spent years drawing in the Louvre and learning from the old masters. He is ever conscious of how his compositions are laid out... how he has organized space and color and how this leads the eye... how the viewer will likely "read" his work. Monet is far more intuitive. His works are also far less consistent. He will try anything. At times he will hit upon compositions that are quite daring and original. In other instances the one is hard pressed to imagine how a major artist could have actually created paintings as glaring bad as he does. In many ways Degas is as innovative if not more so for the very reason that he has such a profound understanding of formal elements and their function... and he recognizes that one cannot simply repeat what worked in the past... that new times call for new forms or new approaches to form. Degas pushes formal elements because he so reveres the achievements of the past and recognizes that they achieved what they did by being of their time... not merely mimicking their idols. Monet's innovations are due to the fact that he is a clear iconoclast.

Wordsworth, Whitman, and Neruda strike me as great "romantics"... true intuitive masters who are unrivaled when they are at their best. Their poetry captures something of that natural underlying structure or rhythm of language... song... Certainly, one is aware of a link with the flow of Biblical prose and other elements... but it never seems consciously arrived upon. The ability to master such an approach to poetry would seem the most difficult... and surely not achieved through any form of laziness... seeking out the quickest and most convenient or efficient means of stating something. One presumes that such an intuitive ability is arrived upon only after having internalized a feel for form and language.

In modern parlance, which is no reflection on historic classicism, I think both sonnet schemes and the Japanese haiku have been trivialized...

Indeed. In fact Haiku itself was already a debased form of earlier Japanese poetic forms... especially collaborative Renga. Like the sonnet and the limerick it is a form that almost every child is taught to recognize in grade school and as a result it has led to endless less-than-interesting poetic achievements. Nevertheless... the forms are still viable in the right hands... as a quick perusal through Geoffrey Hill will reveal.

I believe writers should know what the forms are, when applicable, because Dickinson isn't, to my mind, a formal poet. I suppose that could be contended, but creating her work of the hymns of hard New England Protestantism is nearly as many degrees removed from Milton as she might be from the Black Mountain school...

Again, I somehow imagine that your interpretation of "formalism" assumes a use of pre-existing "classical" forms adhered to somewhat rigorously. This is not what I imagine "formalism" to be. Dickinson is clearly a formalist by my measure for she most certainly composes her work with a rigorous attention to structure... yet most certainly... she challenges assumptions with sudden shifts in tone, in the use of rhyme, etc... Among current poets I would think of Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill, Yves Bonnefoy, Seamus Heaney, Richard Wilbur, Anthony Hecht, etc... as leaning toward formalism.

[Jozanny]

Again, I somehow imagine that your interpretation of "formalism" assumes a use of pre-existing "classical" forms adhered to somewhat rigorously. This is not what I imagine "formalism" to be. Dickinson is clearly a formalist by my measure for she most certainly composes her work with a rigorous attention to structure... yet most certainly... she challenges assumptions with sudden shifts in tone, in the use of rhyme, etc... Among current poets I would think of Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill, Yves Bonnefoy, Seamus Heaney, Richard Wilbur, Anthony Hecht, etc... as leaning toward formalism.

How much do you know about the problems involved in editing the manuscripts Dickinson left behind? She did not organize her work in the stanza forms that readers of our generation know them; I am not an expert on this issue myself, but the original publication of her material had editors involved in puzzling out her line breaks; this is why I hedge my bets, not that I claim she was, a la Whitman, *free form*.

But she did not follow traditional Western models either. Now, I love reading Emily, and wrote her an ode, of a sort, but I know her content has been constructed, to a degree.

[stlukesguild]

The manuscripts I've seen seem to clearly be divided into stanzas. From what I've read she was very careful at organizing and preserving the poems into collections tied with ribbon. The greatest challenge would seem to be transcribing the calligraphy and clearly recognizing breaks between poems. Dealing with multiple variations of the same poem would also seem to be an issue... although this is no less a problem for older writers... including Shakespeare, for whom no autograph edition or publication proof-read by the author exists.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2745/4223821447_852447ee7b_o.jpg

Perhaps a squirrel may remain -
My sentiments to share -
Grant me, O Lord, a sunny mind -
Thy windy will to bear!
_________________________

Safe in their Alabaster Chambers,
Untouched by Morning -
And untouched by Noon -
Sleep the Meek Members of the Resurrection -
Rafter of Satin,
And Roof of Stone.

Light laughs the breeze
In her Castle above them -
Babbles the Bee in a stolid Ear,
Pipe the Sweet Birds in ignorant cadence -
Ah , what sagacity perished here!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4224622338_356f8ba434_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2622/4224622390_c17f13f432_o.jpg

Safe in their Alabaster
Chambers -
Untouched by Morning -
And untouched by Noon -
Lie the meek members of
the Resurrection -
Rafter of Satin - and Roof
of Stone !

Grand go the Years - in the
Crescent - above them -
Worlds scoop their Arcs -
And Firmaments - row -
Diadems - drop - and Doges -
Surrender -
Soundless as dots - on a
Disc of Snow -
______________________

Springs - shake the sills -
But - the Echoes - stiffen -
Hoar - is the window -

(page break)

And - numb - the door -
Tribes - of Eclipse - in Tents -
of Marble -
Staples - of Ages - have
buckled - there -
______________________

Springs - shake the Seals -
But the silence - stiffens -
Frosts unhook - in the
Northern Zones -
Icicles - crawl from polar
Caverns -
Midnight in Marble -
Refutes - the Suns -

I imagine Thomas Traherne's to be an even greater loss. This great English precursor to William Blake was only recently "discovered". A great portion of his poems exist only in versions edited by his brother... who removed the shocking formal elements... as well as theological aspects he found questionable. Luckily we have a good number of autograph versions of the poems. I imagine something similar had Dickinson been edited by a more conservative poet/critic/academic... perhaps of her own time.

[Jozanny]

Let me make one clarification, I never wrote a classical ode form for Emily, as the Dragon Lady never forced that one on me (and the only A she ever gave me was in her poetry course) but I meant it as a modern ode, if you will, and it is in my revision file--it is also the only poem where I suspect Robert stole an idea of an allusion from me, but as he has always been a kind colleague to me, I decided to be flattered by the possibility.

I am in the mood, however, for an elegy.

[stlukesguild]

While I was still working abstractly I actually made my own "elegy" for Dickinson... entitled A Rose for Emily:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2789/4223917355_5e5f75978c_o.jpg

[kelby_lake]

Pardon me if my comment is ignorant as I have a limited experience with poetry but is it just me or is rhyme as a poetic tool appearing to have become an unfashionable trend. Most modern poetry I have seen( albeit I have seen little) appears to have forgone rhyme.

Furthermore I am interested in your opinions on rhyme as a poetic tool, is it still as relevant today as in the past? Is it an integral part of verse or merely a tool to render the poem "prettier"?

Rhyme, when used well, makes the poem flow much better and makes it memorable: 'So long as men can breathe or eyes can see/ So long lives this and this gives life to thee.'

Lots of modern poets forgo rhyme because it gives them the excuse to write any old rubbish, to spew their thoughts out without having to constrain them. Most modern poets don't seem much better than clever schoolchildren's poems; with Classical poetry, you can see a degree of skill- that their poems aren't just something you could knock off in 10 minutes.

Saying that though, I think poetry naturally works better once it's in the past. Perhaps our modern poets will gain more importance when we are sufficiently distanced from that way of life.

[mortalterror]

While I was still working abstractly I actually made my own "elegy" for Dickinson... entitled A Rose for Emily
May I suggest the alternate title: Teabagging Emily Dickinson?

[stlukesguild]

Far too easy, mortal... and it certainly brings about some images that I'm not certain I'd like to deal with now that I've returned to working figuratively or semi-realistically.:eek: