This website

[12sarah]

Hello all-

I was just wondering how do you guys think this website is? I would really love to post my work, but I would really like some insite first. Comment to let me know!

[hillwalker]

If you are looking for meaningful feedback and can handle honest criticism as well as helpful advice (and encouragement) then feel free to post your work. If you just want someone to read your pieces and tell you how wonderful it is (whether that's the truth or not) you might be disappointed.

Of course you can still post your work on here and explain you only want to share it with us and would prefer not to have any responses.

If you're unsure what to expect have a look on comments members have posted on other posters' stories or poetry before taking the plunge.

H

PS - if you're a young writer don't assume we'll treat you more tenderly (although we have been known to make allowances).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If you are looking for meaningful feedback and can handle honest criticism as well as helpful advice (and encouragement) then feel free to post your work. If you just want someone to read your pieces and tell you how wonderful it is (whether that's the truth or not) you might be disappointed.

Of course you can still post your work on here and explain you only want to share it with us and would prefer not to have any responses.

If you're unsure what to expect have a look on comments members have posted on other posters' stories or poetry before taking the plunge.

H

PS - if you're a young writer don't assume we'll treat you more tenderly (although we have been known to make allowances).
i.e., if hill doesn't like your stuff, he'll tear you apart. :D

Seriously, though, the above description is pretty much spot-on.

[WolfLarsen]

Enter with thick skin. Ignore the cyber bullies. Write whatever you want to write.

[Delta40]

i.e., if hill doesn't like your stuff, he'll tear you apart. :D

Seriously, though, the above description is pretty much spot-on.

lol. don't be misled by Hill's cute schoolboy avatar. He is however a very honest and precise critic and has received numerous thanks from budding writers and the advice he gave is true. There are some very tender Lit-Nutters here.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Enter with thick skin. Ignore the cyber bullies. Write whatever you want to write.
i.e., "What I write often gets criticized here . . . and rightly so." :nod:

[Haunted]

If you want to be taken seriously, don't write in rhymes.

[WolfLarsen]

Somebody said:

if hill doesn't like your stuff, he'll tear you apart.

It's unfortunate that some people have left this posting board because of the "critiques" of hillwalker and certain others. Some of these "critiques" were downright mean and perfect examples of cyber bullying. These "critiques" were often a thin camouflage for what appears to be anger management problems. When newer members are subject to this kind of hostility they often just leave. As I said before I think this kind of cyber bullying is bad for the website.

I've noticed that the "critiques" are especially vicious if the new poster dares to be innovative or creative. Isn't the purpose of creative writing to be creative? I think we should be encouraging new posters to be as creative and innovative as they wish, and I think that we should give them a genuine welcome instead of subjecting them to cyber bullying.

Me personally the cyber bullying does not bother me much. I noticed that certain cyber bullies rarely post if ever their own material. Why is that? And I noticed that the few that do - well, their work is so dry, archaic, and lifeless that I get a good laugh. Perhaps that is why they take their frustrations out on others? Because their own material is so wanting of vitality, life, and creativity? Whatever the reason I wish these cyber bullies would stop running new posters off the website. New posters should be welcomed instead.

[hillwalker]

Somebody said:

- if hill doesn't like your work he'll tear you apart -

That same somebody also had a sense of humour when they posted that comment if you had bothered to quote their response in full.
But I'll ignore your own lack of wit and your personalised attack.


I noticed that certain cyber bullies rarely post if ever their own material. Why is that?

If I'm included in this (and I have to assume I am) it's because my poetry kept getting copied and posted on other web-sites without my permission.


And I noticed that the few that do - well, their work is so dry, archaic, and lifeless that I get a good laugh.

I'm not sure if this is still me you're writing about since you never gave any feedback on my work. But if you did find my writing that bad I'll consider it a compliment given your astute aesthetic analysis of what constitutes good literature and your own attempts on here.


Perhaps that is why they take their frustrations out on others? Because their own material is so wanting of vitality, life, and creativity? Whatever the reason I wish these cyber bullies would stop running new posters off the website. New posters should be welcomed instead.

You win, of course, because your opinion is always the one that's right. I'll make this my last post on LitNet and allow you to welcome all-comers with open arms in your inimitable style. Good luck.

H

[Charles Darnay]

You win, of course, because your opinion is always the one that's right. I'll make this my last post on LitNet and allow you to welcome all-comers with open arms in your inimitable style. Good luck.

H

That would be a great loss, indeed, particularly for those who so rarely come across honestly meticulous deconstruction.

I'm surprised this has dragged on as it has (and across several threads.) People have different ideas of art and writing - so what? While being so concerned about "scaring off" newcomers, let them decide for themselves what they are willing/not willing to accept.

And Wolf, while I would never ask you to reconsider your view of art or writing, your definition of cyber-bullying is a bit askew.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Wolf is just displaying some sour apples. His work is harshly criticized by hill and others, and his is the only person's I've seen this, mostly because Wolf refuses to accept criticism and keep posing the same stuff, refusing to grow as a writer. He has also neglected to mention that he gets plenty, and surprisng, amounts of positive feedback.

hill can be brusk, but most of the time his critiques are thoughtful.

[smerdyakov]

You win, of course, because your opinion is always the one that's right. I'll make this my last post on LitNet and allow you to welcome all-comers with open arms in your inimitable style. Good luck.

No, Hill. Don't quit the site.
You are smart enough to rise above Wolfarsen's bolloxology.

[Jack of Hearts]

hill's a saint for putting up with this junk for so long in the first place. He's not the only one to notice the acrimony, the sharp shooting, the general nastiness- and the vultures that swoop over for no other reason than to chew the carrion. Exactly where you'd want to share your work and invest your time.

Pearls before swine, hill. Get the flock out of dodge and come back, if you choose to, on your own time.

But for now, back to Prague.






J

[WolfLarsen]

I don't know. I think I myself have been pretty polite considering what I've had to put up with from some of the posters here. Also, considering how what I say is often misrepresented by certain posters I think I've been quite polite indeed. I think my behavior has been very restrained here.

It's interesting to note that when a cyber bully gets to look in the mirror it's not very pretty. I think it's time for some people to develop something called manners and common decency. So you don't like somebody's writing. So what? Don't read their stuff! Don't click on their threads. It's that simple. People have the right to write whatever they want to.

There are others on this website whose behavior was even more exemplary than mine. They handled the cyber bullying that was coming from certain people with even greater politeness than I have. They are the true saints. They also left and went to other posting boards. It's sad. Cyber bullies pushing people off this website with their angry behavior. It's like they need a punching bag or something.

Oh well, that's life.

[AuntShecky]

But some of us were offering genuine constructive criticism, no? Or asking honest questions, such as "what kind of things have you been reading?" (some of which we're still waiting for an answer.) I hope that isn't your definition of "cyber bullying."

Please do feel free to read any postings by yours truly (poems, short stories)
and rip the hell out 'em. That's called "give and take."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Politeness has little to do with it. You've been plenty polite, Wolf. That doesn't mean you haven't displayed arrogance, shortsightedness, and a complete refusal to accept criticism or even, like AuntShecky said, answer simple questions. Surely a question like "what kind of things have you been reading lately?" is not out-of-bounds for a literature forum.

[Darcy88]

I don't know. I think I myself have been pretty polite considering what I've had to put up with from some of the posters here. Also, considering how what I say is often misrepresented by certain posters I think I've been quite polite indeed. I think my behavior has been very restrained here.

It's interesting to note that when a cyber bully gets to look in the mirror it's not very pretty. I think it's time for some people to develop something called manners and common decency. So you don't like somebody's writing. So what? Don't read their stuff! Don't click on their threads. It's that simple. People have the right to write whatever they want to.

There are others on this website whose behavior was even more exemplary than mine. They handled the cyber bullying that was coming from certain people with even greater politeness than I have. They are the true saints. They also left and went to other posting boards. It's sad. Cyber bullies pushing people off this website with their angry behavior. It's like they need a punching bag or something.

Oh well, that's life.

So self-righteous. Oh its nauseating.

You have THREE current threads devoted to your ridiculous nonsensical aesthetically-devoid "poetry" and your inane revoltingly grandiose rants. You refuse to take criticism well, instead turning it around on the reader and going ad hominem, calling them conservative, puritanical, close-minded and bullies. Hillwalker finally got annoyed in another thread after you failed to adhere to any sane standard of social conduct. And then you call him a bully, again and again and again.

I suppose if he stays away you'll be able to post your random scribbles free from any interference, any challenge or critique, like a bubble at ease in the open air, no fear of getting pricked.

That said, I don't dislike you as a person. And I've even somewhat enjoyed some of your work. But in the last while you have gone out of your way to be deliberately provocative and its a sad thing of immense magnitude that a helpful and careful critic in Hillwalker may no longer be among us. And I don't blame him.

[MANICHAEAN]

Hill
Too much hot air out there at the moment. Lit Net, every couple of years seems to indulge in a frenzy of blood letting. Continue to do what you do best.
Regards
M.

[Hawkman]

^-^

Seconded, put to a vote and carried unanimously.

[zoolane]

I am high grateful to hill walker and others of critisms and dare I said feedback. Yes I take break from this site for while due other site which is will help me in different way. This great website and the majority of members are wonderful minus 1-2.

[MANICHAEAN]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Hawkman]

Ego solum :D

[zoolane]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Not sure maybe Aunty


Ego solum :D

:biggrin5:

[BookBeauty]

There is something I would like to add. I'm quoting from a longer article, but it was about how to be a better writer.

''...Some people will tell you that your writing is always good. These people are lying. And some people will tell you that your writing is always bad. These people are also lying. …But a few rare people will point out the stuff that they like, call you out on some of the dumb **** that you’re writing, and gently but forcefully suggest ways to make your dumb **** better. Treasure these people. Learn to recognize them. These people are your only hope.''

In my humble opinion, from what I have seen on here, Hillwalker is one of those people. No bully.

I can't blame people for being sensitive to criticism. I've been there. We've all been there.

But, when somebody actually takes the time to look at your piece and say something about it, especially when it's not all good, and not all bad, that's something we should all appreciate.

'Cause lots of times I've seen HW being the only one to comment on people's work. That's a lot of time that he's taken to try to help. :)

So thank you!

And thanks so very, very much, to all the others who really try to help us grow as writers. Thanks for putting in the time and effort to drudge through our crazy prose, poetry and stories and nail down foibles and point out where we shine.

You guys rock!

[qimissung]

I don't know. I think I myself have been pretty polite considering what I've had to put up with from some of the posters here. Also, considering how what I say is often misrepresented by certain posters I think I've been quite polite indeed. I think my behavior has been very restrained here.

It's interesting to note that when a cyber bully gets to look in the mirror it's not very pretty. I think it's time for some people to develop something called manners and common decency. So you don't like somebody's writing. So what? Don't read their stuff! Don't click on their threads. It's that simple. People have the right to write whatever they want to.

There are others on this website whose behavior was even more exemplary than mine. They handled the cyber bullying that was coming from certain people with even greater politeness than I have. They are the true saints. They also left and went to other posting boards. It's sad. Cyber bullies pushing people off this website with their angry behavior. It's like they need a punching bag or something.

Oh well, that's life.

I think you are being a bit disingenuous to call yourself polite. I also think that you were very passively agressivle name calling Hillwalker when you referred to cyber-bullying. For the record, Hillwalker is the farthest thing from a cyber-bully. He is blunt and he is honest.

You, on the other hand, Wolf Larsen, persist in posting work that is sub-par, which is certainly your right. But please quit expecting us to pretend that it is other than what it is.

As to the OP, I really like the quote fromthe previous poster. I myself am somewhat prone to saying "That's great!", but if I do feel strongly otherwise I will say. Also be aware that, unfortunately, it is easy for people from other site to steal your stuff, copyright or no.

[Bewlay Brother]

Wolf stop trivializing cyber bullying. Cyber bullying is a serious issue where people destroy the self-esteem of already flimsy adolescent girls (and boys) and make them feel ugly and worthless and it sometimes leads to depression and even suicides of people too young to even vote.

Stop calling someone criticizing your uninspired and self-indulgent "art" cyber bullying.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Wolf stop trivializing cyber bullying. Cyber bullying is a serious issue where people destroy the self-esteem of already flimsy adolescent girls (and boys) and make them feel ugly and worthless and it sometimes leads to depression and even suicides of people too young to even vote.

Stop calling someone criticizing your uninspired and self-indulgent "art" cyber bullying.

I didn't think about it fom this angle, but BB is right--it's kind of low to take an actual, serious issue and apply it to such frivolous concerns as those on LitNet.

[Bewlay Brother]

I didn't think about it fom this angle, but BB is right--it's kind of low to take an actual, serious issue and apply it to such frivolous concerns as those on LitNet.

Be right back. I need to go through all your posts and make sure you've never called anyone a "Grammar Nazi".

: )

[Charles Darnay]

Be right back. I need to go through all your posts and make sure you've never called anyone a "Grammar Nazi".

: )

I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6060107/grammar-nazis

(for anyone who doesn't get the reference, go see Inglorious Bastards)

[MANICHAEAN]

If you want to know what cyber bullying really is, try posting a story on the "Teak Door Forum" which caters to a lost tribe of expatriates in Thailand. They resemble a pack of wild wolves to anyone coming near to their lamp post territory makers.

Luckily, I found it somewhat amusing and refreshing to submit what I thought was a good piece and have reactions along the line of:

"Crap!"

"Don't give up the day job."

At least it was not; "There is room for improvement" & "If I might suggest."

[JuniperWoolf]

If you want to be taken seriously, don't write in rhymes.

Right, Shakespearean sonnets written in iambic pentameter with proper rhyme schemes are for n00bs, real skill and a dedicated study of poetry is only reflected in non-rhyming free verse.*


I'm surprised this has dragged on as it has (and across several threads).

That's what happens when people take themselves seriously. Sometimes it's funny, in this case it's tedious.



*sarcasm

[Haunted]

Right, Shakespearean sonnets written in iambic pentameter with proper rhyme schemes are for n00bs, real skill and a dedicated study of poetry is only reflected in non-rhyming free verse.*
*sarcasm

Did I say not to study rhyming poems? You never stopped twisting things I said just to be confrontational.

If you don't dress yourself like someone from 400 years ago, why would you want to write like one?

Shakespeare was great, so was Chaucer. But the world keeps evolving. Rhymes belongs to a time when people wrote with a feather. Now we use ballpens, keyboards and virtual keyboards. To see what poetry looks like since the 20th century, I recommend T.S. Eliot, or Alan Ginsberg and Charles Bukowsky (sp)

There is a small handful of what I considered "Litnet Greats" who can deliver a few rhyming charmers. My comment was for those inexperienced students of poetry writing who use rhymes like they didn't know the world has changed. If you look at their work, rhymes are nothing but crutches. They write around rhymes when they really should write from their heart. As a result their stuff is heartless, meaningless and pretentious.

- - - - - -

To those whining about getting criticized for their works, they really should read this before they post: ***PLEASE read before posting your poems*** (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=959110#post959110). Those who are in denial, here's the gist of it:

Logos: If you are going to post your own poems here, please remember that you are opening yourself up to the criticism and opinions of others which might not agree with your own.

Scher: I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that unless you are willing to accept negative criticism as well as the praise offered, you should refrain from posting your work in this section of the Forum.

People who know Hill know he is a great writer AND critic and his comments are valued widely. Personally he's spot on in regards to my stuff. The person who portrayed him as "cyber bully" IS a cyber bully himself, scaring off everyone who dares to disagree with his writing.

Hill, I hope you come back, Litnet needs you! As always you can say anything about my stuff, I can take it. lol

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't get the whole attitude against rhyme. I love rhyme in poetry! Still, this site does have some members who have what seems to be an unreasonable bias against rhyme. Hell, I wrote a rhyming poem and received a smarmy comment from our venerated hillwalker.

[Darcy88]

I don't get the whole attitude against rhyme. I love rhyme in poetry! Still, this site does have some members who have what seems to be an unreasonable bias against rhyme. Hell, I wrote a rhyming poem and received a smarmy comment from our venerated hillwalker.

It takes a tonne of skill to make the rhyme fit the ideas and I wonder whether some people dislike rhyme because they are lazy and would rather not bother. Poetry can rhyme or not rhyme, both have their positive sides. Rhyme can be powerful, hence why song-writers take full advantage of it.

[Calidore]

It takes a tonne of skill to make the rhyme fit the ideas and I wonder whether some people dislike rhyme because they are lazy and would rather not bother. Poetry can rhyme or not rhyme, both have their positive sides. Rhyme can be powerful, hence why song-writers take full advantage of it.

Agreed. Writing to a rhyme and rhythm is difficult. I will never understand why some folks who like things a certain way have to pronounce their way as the only worthwhile way.

[JuniperWoolf]

Did I say not to study rhyming poems?

No, you said not to post them here because no one would take him seriously. Hawk posted a rhyming poem a couple of days ago that you gushed over, and a skillful use of rhyme and language trumps overly obscure (to the point of being almost meaningless) free-verse poems about death and middle-class depression in my books, which is apparently what people "take seriously" around this stupid sub-forum. I'm not just trying to be confrontational, I take honest issue with what you said, you're parroting a modern sentiment which I've heard many times from the lazier "creative" writing students in my university and it always really bugs me. You are effectively closing people's minds before they even start. Statements like "no one takes rhyme seriously" inhibits growth (also, it isn't just Shakespeare who wrote sonnets, the English sonnet type is simply named after him - implying that rhyme is as dated as the feather quill suggests that you don't often read or study poetry). Learning how to employ rhyme in an effective manner is one of the most impressive things that a poet can accomplish, they're never going to learn anything if you just tell them not to try right off the bat.

Hahaha, my boyfriend just read the sentence "rhymes belongs to a time when people wrote with a feather" over my shoulder and asked (and I quote) "who the f*ck are you talking to?"

[WolfLarsen]

The rhyme is dead in poetry. It died in the last century.

[Catamite]

The rhyme is dead in poetry. It died in the last century.

Absolute tosh. Look at the three poets who were mentioned earlier, Allen Ginsberg and Charles Bukowski are poets whose works have little poetic merit, and weren't even necessarily trying to produce work that did. While T.S Eliot frequently used rhyme innovativel, just not throughout an entire poem. Also referencing Eliot is slightly redundant because was a classicist anyway.

The reason rhyme is no longer so present is because 'rhyme is dead' but because it has fallen out of poplularity, a truly innovative poet would seek to restore it. Contemporary poets seem to either want to be Bukowski or Plath - it's lazy. Poetry can be written in many different forms but asserting that rhyme is now too unreachable is regressive and narrow-minded.

Basically, this:''Learning how to employ rhyme in an effective manner is one of the most impressive things that a poet can accomplish''

[Charles Darnay]

Also referencing Eliot is slightly redundant because was a classicist anyway.

My initial response to this comment: "what does class have anything do with it! That's ridiculous." Then my mind slapped me, I realized that I need some coffee.....yup...

Anyway. Rhyme is not the problem with poetry. It is when certain poets (both on this site and in "the real world") decide to emphasize rhyme over content and meaning. A poem can rhyme or not, if it has meaning and/or aesthetic value - it is good. If not - it's not.

[Calidore]

My initial response to this comment: "what does class have anything do with it! That's ridiculous." Then my mind slapped me, I realized that I need some coffee.....yup...

Anyway. Rhyme is not the problem with poetry. It is when certain poets (both on this site and in "the real world") decide to emphasize rhyme over content and meaning. A poem can rhyme or not, if it has meaning and/or aesthetic value - it is good. If not - it's not.

Well put. Empty rhymes = empty free verse. Change the adjective, not the form.

[qimissung]

Very well put, catamite. I'm not even going to add my two cents.

To each his own, concerning the varied opinions on whether rhyme is useful or dead or dying. It's how that. Opinion is expressed, and in a literary forum, it would seem possible that those opinions could be expressed wittly, cleverly, seriously, but never, I would hope, in a mean spirited manner. Remember to debate the issues, and not take issue with the people.

[Darcy88]

The rhyme is dead in poetry. It died in the last century.

A statement of conformity.

[Alexander III]

No, you said not to post them here because no one would take him seriously. Hawk posted a rhyming poem a couple of days ago that you gushed over, and a skillful use of rhyme and language trumps overly obscure (to the point of being almost meaningless) free-verse poems about death and middle-class depression in my books, which is apparently what people "take seriously" around this stupid sub-forum. I'm not just trying to be confrontational, I take honest issue with what you said, you're parroting a modern sentiment which I've heard many times from the lazier "creative" writing students in my university and it always really bugs me. You are effectively closing people's minds before they even start. Statements like "no one takes rhyme seriously" inhibits growth (also, it isn't just Shakespeare who wrote sonnets, the English sonnet type is simply named after him - implying that rhyme is as dated as the feather quill suggests that you don't often read or study poetry). Learning how to employ rhyme in an effective manner is one of the most impressive things that a poet can accomplish, they're never going to learn anything if you just tell them not to try right off the bat.

Hahaha, my boyfriend just read the sentence "rhymes belongs to a time when people wrote with a feather" over my shoulder and asked (and I quote) "who the f*ck are you talking to?"


Yes, Rhyme is fine but it is hard to acomplish well. Which is why so many are opposed to it, because Rhyme tends to emphasize the greatness or mediocrity of a poem.

And as almost everything written is mediocre, hardly anyone wants to emphasize their mediocrity.

So yes there is a point to not taking rhyme seriously, because if one uses rhyme in a peom there is a 99.9% chance it will simply empahsize the mediocrity of their poem

[Alexander III]

A statement of conformity.

I must agree with Darcy, that is just a conformist statement.

[Catamite]

So yes there is a point to not taking rhyme seriously, because if one uses rhyme in a peom there is a 99.9% chance it will simply empahsize the mediocrity of their poem

This I believe, was understood, even specifically stated. The point made was that despite the difficulty of rhyme, it should still be pursued. It should be pursued not only as a benefit to the poet, but so that old forms used for modern purposes, and do not die. And like Darcy, claiming that 'rhyming is dead' is conformity - even more ridiculous coming from an 'innovative' poet.

[Alexander III]

This I believe, was understood, even specifically stated. The point made was that despite the difficulty of rhyme, it should still be pursued. It should be pursued not only as a benefit to the poet, but so that old forms used for modern purposes, and do not die. And like Darcy, claiming that 'rhyming is dead' is conformity - even more ridiculous coming from an 'innovative' poet.

I never said don't rhyme, I just said that I understood why the sentiment "Rhyme is ridicoulous" might occur in some people. If your entire experiance with rhyme, is one that merley acentuates the mediocrity of your poem, of course you would find yourself to have a natural aversion to it.

[henrymilesoxfor]

I try not to respond to criticism, partly because I want my writing to stand on it's own merits, and partially because I don't want to give anybody reason to be gentile towards my matreial. That being said I value the criticism from those strangers who have taken time to review my work. I have come to depend on Hill's honest reviews and if he were to quit I would seriously question the value of posting further work in the future. As I suspect this is an overly dramatic protest to flex his internet muscle, I will keep hope that he will continue to do god's work and read through the countless mediocre stories so that writers such as myself can continue to improve. Anybody who can not stand honest feedback can quit writing. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.

[Charles Darnay]

I try not to respond to criticism, partly because I want my writing to stand on it's own merits, and partially because I don't want to give anybody reason to be gentile towards my matreial. That being said I value the criticism from those strangers who have taken time to review my work. I have come to depend on Hill's honest reviews and if he were to quit I would seriously question the value of posting further work in the future. As I suspect this is an overly dramatic protest to flex his internet muscle, I will keep hope that he will continue to do god's work and read through the countless mediocre stories so that writers such as myself can continue to improve. Anybody who can not stand honest feedback can quit writing. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.

Yes, I also don't want to give anybody reason to be gentile towards my material.....I'm not a fan of overly Christian criticism :D (sorry couldn't resist).


On a more serious note.....there are other members of the community that do give insightful feedback/criticism to posted work - and so I hope you will continue to share your stuff. That being said, Jack and Hill's absences, both, have been noticed over the past few days/week.

[Haunted]

No, you said not to post them here because no one would take him seriously.

What I was saying is, no creative writing program on a university level would admit someone who writes poems that rhyme, at least not in New York. They will be laughed out of class. But rhyme away if it's your thing, I'm not stopping you.



Hawk posted a rhyming poem a couple of days ago that you gushed over

You have missed something I said:


There is a small handful of what I considered "Litnet Greats" who can deliver a few rhyming charmers.

Hawk is one of the "Litnet Greats" I was referring to. If you follow Hawk's work he is a master in rhymes, his poems are brilliant. He can pull it off because his rhymes don't get in the way, as opposed to some who twist their lines so out of shape just to fit their rhymes, the poems don't even make sense.

Let me quote from an accomplished poet, whose view I shared:

"It’s not rhyme which is bad, it’s bad rhyming. To do it well one needs a good vocabulary and a solid understanding of what the words mean. A healthy sense of rhythm helps too. Do it well and it’s almost invisible because the reader just enjoys the fun and wordplay. Get it wrong and everyone jumps on it. Rhyme is a useful tool. By rhyming you can soften the blow of what you are saying because it gives a poem a tongue in cheekiness. You can get away with saying some outrageous stuff It’s certainly not the be all and end all of poetry though, any more than free verse is."



a skillful use of rhyme and language trumps overly obscure (to the point of being almost meaningless) free-verse poems about death and middle-class depression in my books, which is apparently what people "take seriously" around this stupid sub-forum.

Calling the section "stupid" and categorically condemning everyone just because some favor certain works is uncalled for. It's not so much a particular theme that appeals to them, it's the skill of writing and how it's put together. Besides everyone is entitled to their opinion.

The majority of literature explores the human condition, that's human suffering if you are not familiar with the term. If you like Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet is a prime example. Other classics like Wuthering Heights and Tess of D'urberville also deal with death and tragedy. Greene Greene's novels are down right depressing.



I'm not just trying to be confrontational

You could have knocked me out with a feather.



I take honest issue with what you said, you're parroting a modern sentiment which I've heard many times from the lazier "creative" writing students in my university and it always really bugs me. You are effectively closing people's minds before they even start. Statements like "no one takes rhyme seriously" inhibits growth (also, it isn't just Shakespeare who wrote sonnets, the English sonnet type is simply named after him - implying that rhyme is as dated as the feather quill suggests that you don't often read or study poetry).

hmmm...I studied literature through grad school, I think I know. These days the only thing that rhymes are greeting card copy.



Learning how to employ rhyme in an effective manner is one of the most impressive things that a poet can accomplish, they're never going to learn anything if you just tell them not to try right off the bat.

They teach rhymes at school and it's important to expose students to different types of writing. Once again, quote: it’s not so much that rhyme is bad, it’s bad rhyming.



Hahaha, my boyfriend just read the sentence "rhymes belongs to a time when people wrote with a feather" over my shoulder and asked (and I quote) "who the f*ck are you talking to?"

Perhaps you should date someone who's less vulgar.

[Darcy88]

Shakespeare was great, so was Chaucer. But the world keeps evolving. Rhymes belongs to a time when people wrote with a feather. Now we use ballpens, keyboards and virtual keyboards. To see what poetry looks like since the 20th century, I recommend T.S. Eliot, or Alan Ginsberg and Charles Bukowsky (sp)



William Butler Yeats wrote with a feather pen? He was a thousand times the poet of Ginsberg or Bukowsky. Are you arguing that rhyming poetry is inherently inferior to free verse? Actually, I can answer my own question and say yes you are arguing that in this day an age, an age in which poetry has evolved beyond rhyme, non-rhyming verse is in fact superior. That's a little silly. A great poem is a great poem, rhyme or no rhyme.

[Jack of Hearts]

As someone who has probably never written a poem without rhyme, this reader is starting to hate this thread.

This thread is a pimple in Litnet's nether-regions and the bacteria that spawned it.

The original poster asked for perspective on this website. Well, je te présente Litnet. The internet. The 21st century in people.







J

[JuniperWoolf]

yes there is a point to not taking rhyme seriously, because if one uses rhyme in a peom there is a 99.9% chance it will simply empahsize the mediocrity of their poem

Well yeah, but better to try out the more difficult classic styles as well as non-rhyming free-verse than to perpetually cower under a veneer of pop-art obscurity, don’t you think? You’d get torn apart, but you’d improve as a result.


What I was saying is, no creative writing program on a university level would admit someone who writes poems that rhyme, at least not in New York. They will be laughed out of class.

Don't even try it. This is the 21st century, we live in a globalized society. The poets at a NY university are no more or less cultured or sophisticated than those from any other university in the world. My friend Scott goes to school in NY and he was shocked by how similar they are to us (apparently, he thought you would all be characters from Guys and Dolls).

Also, almost every published contemporary poet uses rhyme as a sound device, which you should know if you really have taken a university level poetry course. I'd like to see you laugh at John Ashbery.


You have missed something I said. Hawk is one of the "Litnet Greats" I was referring to. If you follow Hawk's work he is a master in rhymes, his poems are brilliant. He can pull it off because his rhymes don't get in the way, as opposed to some who twist their lines so out of shape just to fit their rhymes, the poems don't even make sense.

I know, and that served to make your previous post even more ridiculous.


It’s not rhyme which is bad, it’s bad rhyming. To do it well one needs a good vocabulary and a solid understanding of what the words mean.

And how is someone supposed to develop that understanding if you advocate cowardice and suggest that they don't even bother to try?


hmmm...I studied literature through grad school, I think I know. These days the only thing that rhymes are greeting card copy.

Tell that to Maya Angelou, Margaret Atwood, Yehuda Amichai, Charles Bukowski, Adrienne Rich, Seamus Heaney, or any other great contemporary poet - or did you not study them in grad school?


Perhaps you should date someone who's less vulgar.

Someone who's more boring, you mean? I think I’ll pass.

[Emil Miller]

It takes a tonne of skill to make the rhyme fit the ideas and I wonder whether some people dislike rhyme because they are lazy and would rather not bother. Poetry can rhyme or not rhyme, both have their positive sides. Rhyme can be powerful, hence why song-writers take full advantage of it.

I hesitate to comment on this thread because I don't have any particular interest in poetry. However, it has come to my attention that you can get away with an awful lot of tosh in free verse, which to my mind is like prose writing without a plot. To give an example of what I mean, here is a poem in free verse followed by the same poem in rhyme. I know which one I prefer.


Oh Gloria, glorious Gloriana of my distant ambiguous youth.
Gloria in excelsis Deo, who hath given unto a cruel and demeaning world
She who in thoughtless innocence plighted her troth to aristocratic desire,
And then unto a minstrel and a wandering troubadour of lesser breed
Whose mingled chimes and tessiture,
Dance upon the wafting waves of sound into resonant obscurity.
Twice defiled by he who, though high born, be lower
Than the height of a grasshopper’s knee.
And those who merry musick doth make in distant lands.


There was a young lady called Gloria
Who seduced Sir Gerald Du Maurier,
Jack Hulbert, Jack Payne
Sir Gerald again
And the band of the Waldorf Astoria

[Alexander III]

I hesitate to comment on this thread because I don't have any particular interest in poetry. However, it has come to my attention that you can get away with an awful lot of tosh in free verse, which to my mind is like prose writing without a plot. To give an example of what I mean, here is an example of a poem in free verse followed by the same poem in rhyme. I know which one I prefer.


Oh Gloria, glorious Gloriana of my distant ambiguous youth.
Gloria in excelsis Deo, who hath given unto a cruel and demeaning world
She who in thoughtless innocence plighted her troth to aristocratic desire,
And then unto a minstrel and a wandering troubadour of lesser breed
Whose mingled chimes and tessiture,
Dance upon the wafting waves of sound Into resonant obscurity.
Twice defiled by he who, though high born, be lower
Than the height of a grasshopper’s knee.
And those who merry musick doth make in distant lands.


There was a young lady called Gloria
Who seduced Sir Gerald Du Maurier,
Jack Hulbert, Jack Payne
Sir Gerald again
And the band of the Waldorf Astoria

Personaly I think they are both equally ridicoulous.

[WolfLarsen]

The ryhme in poetry is dead. Trying to argue that the ryhme in poetry is not dead is like trying to argue that the earth is flat. Rhyming weakens the contemporary poem. If a ryhming poem is decent it is in spite of the fact of the ryhmes. Each ryhme is like nails on blackboard.

I defend forever the right of people to create poetry that ryhmes. But contemporary poetry that ryhmes is nearly always bad poetry. But I still defend someon's right to create and post bad poetry.

[papayahed]

It seems the original question has been answered in a mature and welcoming manner and this thread can now be closed.