the importance of punctuation or not

[cacian]

in poetry?!

I personally have the tendency to write poetry naturally without punctuation.
I seem to prefer the flow that way and also it gives the reader the choice to decide to punctuate or not mentally for themselves.


Discuss

[FranzS]

It depends on whether the lack of punctuation is for effect, or simply due to laziness or ignorance.

Text without punctuation, whether prose and poetry, is easier to write but harder to read. Punctuation adds nuance and clarity, and if you're going sacrifice these in punctuation, you'd better be supplying them in other ways.

Here in the UK lots of people are now lazy about punctuation, largely because they were never taught it properly. On forums, if I come across a post without punctuation or written in text speak, I just skip it. Life's too short. If someone wants their stuff to be read, they can help me out by not leaving all the hard work to me.

[Delta40]

I agree. I prefer the use of punctuation in poetry. I found through experience that most poetry profits from shape and meaning. IMO punctuation goes a far distance in aiding that.

[YesNo]

I try to use correct punctuation and spelling in either prose or poetry, because I want the reader to focus on the content of the text.

Edit: I've been in discussions on other forums where poets will complain when other poets capitalize the first letter of the line or even put a line break at the end of the line of poetry. Both of these are extra forms of punctuation that are not used in prose. I use both, because I suspect the reader expects to see them. However, if I removed all line breaks and initial capital letters I hope what I write would pass an MS Word grammar check.

[FranzS]

I try to use correct punctuation and spelling in either prose or poetry, because I want the reader to focus on the content of the text.

Edit: I've been in discussions on other forums where poets will complain when other poets capitalize the first letter of the line or even put a line break at the end of the line of poetry. Both of these are extra forms of punctuation that are not used in prose. I use both, because I suspect the reader expects to see them.


Interesting... I write poetry and, although I use many poetic conventions, I don't use capital letters at the starts of lines. In a way I feel I should, because I'm a bit of a traditionalist; but when I tried it, the poems looked archaic because it's so uncommon these days.

As for line breaks... How can you write poetry without line breaks? They are fundamental to the structure of a poem, and are also a way of adding pauses where no explicit punctuation would be appropriate. Some of the most brilliant poetic effects are due to well-placed line breaks; however, a lot of poets just apply them arbitrarily, when a line has reached the length of the line above it.

I think the appearance of a poem on the page is very important, and it's why a lot of brilliant poems lose so much of their effect when read out loud (at least if you've never seen them written down).


However, if I removed all line breaks and initial capital letters I hope what I write would pass an MS Word grammar check.

I don't trust MS Word's grammar checker as far as I could throw it :)

[My2cents]

If you know Thai, or even little bit of it, you know that there's no capitalization or punctuation. It's all in the context. And though that would be annoying and impractical in English (as we're so used to punctuation and capitalization) I think it's doable for any language. In fact, isn't true that capitalization and punctuation, in the West, were invented for the sake of the printing press' convenience? (Which would mean that there's no correlation to impeccable use of punctuation and capitalization to literary ability, and there isn't.)

Having said that, I can't stand abnormal punctuation and capitalization in prose, poetry or whatever. Nothing should shift the focus from the use of the words themselves, their unique combination or lack thereof, when appraising poetry.

[FranzS]

If you know Thai, or even little bit of it, you know that there's no capitalization or punctuation. It's all in the context. And though that would be annoying and impractical in English (as we're so used to punctuation and capitalization) I think it's doable for any language. In fact, isn't true that capitalization and punctuation, in the West, were invented for the sake of the printing press' convenience?


Just because something is artificial does not mean that it does not acquire meaning and power. The whole written language is a mere convenience for communication - but it makes types of communication possible that would not be possible with only the spoken word. The written word increases the subtlety of a language, and punctuation in turn increases the subtlety of the written word.



(Which would mean that there's no correlation to impeccable use of punctuation and capitalization to literary ability, and there isn't.)


That's a sweeping statement. Certainly there are people who can punctuate perfectly who couldn't write a story or poem to save their lives. Conversely, there are people with a natural feeling for language who can't, or don't bother to, punctuate properly - though I think such people are rare. I suppose you could say Eminem shows a certain crude flair for language, and I imagine (maybe I'm wrong?) he isn't too interested in punctuation. But then, his medium is the spoken word, and we're talking about literature.

In general, a good writer uses punctuation as one of the tools of the trade. So I would have to disagree that there is no correlation.

[My2cents]

^^^^
My point is that punctuation is remedial stuff. If punctuation is the focus, then obviously what's at issue isn't art.

[YesNo]

As for line breaks... How can you write poetry without line breaks? They are fundamental to the structure of a poem, and are also a way of adding pauses where no explicit punctuation would be appropriate.

It is easy to write poetry without line breaks--just remove them. If the poem is metrical, the sound of it should allow the listener to put in those breaks if desired. If it is not, Baudelaire already set the structure for prose poems.

Admittedly poems look like flash fiction without the line breaks, but removing the line breaks has a value for both metrical and non-metrical poetry. If one is writing nonsense, it is harder to hide.



I don't trust MS Word's grammar checker as far as I could throw it :)
Actually, I don't trust it either, but I like how it points out potential problems that might require a rewriting.

[Delta40]

Yeah but I find poetry without line breaks is like short stories without paragraphs. It's a put off for most readers. If we have to plough through something because the writer couldn't be bothered setting their work out in the proper format, why would we give it the attention they think it deserves? IMO the writer is using less energy and shifting it to the reader.

[YesNo]

I agree. People expect the line breaks, so why not give it to them?

[Delta40]

^^^^
My point is that punctuation is remedial stuff. If punctuation is the focus, then obviously what's at issue isn't art.

That's like suggesting the quality of materials used in producing a painting or a sculpture isn't relevant.

[My2cents]

That's like suggesting the quality of materials used in producing a painting or a sculpture isn't relevant.

No, what I'm suggesting is punctuation is to addition,subtraction, division, and multiplication as calculus, linear algebra, and advanced math is to art, poetry, and fiction. It goes without saying that anyone doing art, poetry, and fiction has mastered the rudiments of language, which punctuation is.

[Delta40]

It goes without saying that anyone doing art, poetry, and fiction has mastered the rudiments of language, which punctuation is.

Really? That's quite an assumption on your part. I take it you're not assuming that only those who would dabble in such arts are all educated are you?

[My2cents]

Really? That's quite an assumption on your part. I take it you're not assuming that only those who would dabble in such arts are all educated are you?

I don't know what's so hard to understand. Poetry and fiction are the highest forms of writing, meaning to do them WELL punctuation shouldn't even be issue to the extent you would need a schoolmarm telling you at every turn how to parse the sentence with a comma, a semicolon or what not.

[Delta40]

Yes but the question of whether punctuation is important in poetry is the issue in this forum. Perhaps we've misunderstood each other and are talking at cross purposes. I'm a stickler for punctuation and applying it in poetry is an element of the art itself since as you say we should have mastered the language, with all its remedial stuff. To omit such things as line breaks, punctuation and capital letters is to admit one's own lack of mastery.

[Jair]

Poetry and fiction are the highest forms of writing

What the hell does that mean?

[Delta40]

What the hell does that mean?

lol. Meaning a shopping list is the lowest :p

[My2cents]

Yes but the question of whether punctuation is important in poetry is the issue in this forum. Perhaps we've misunderstood each other and are talking at cross purposes. I'm a stickler for punctuation and applying it in poetry is an element of the art itself since as you say we should have mastered the language, with all its remedial stuff. To omit such things as line breaks, punctuation and capital letters is to admit one's own lack of mastery.

If I were writing poetry, I'd write more or less in full sentences with all the obligatory punctuations and orthography. I kind of doubt however it'll be as good as William Carlos Williams' "Red Wheelbarrow."


What the hell does that mean?

It means they're not easy to write unlike your fatuous remark.

[YesNo]

If I were writing poetry, I'd write more or less in full sentences with all the obligatory punctuations and orthography. I kind of doubt however it'll be as good as William Carlos Williams' "Red Wheelbarrow."
That's one poem I don't like (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-red-wheelbarrow/) but it is an example of line breaks splitting up the following sentence:


So much depends upon a red wheelbarrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens.

If I put the sentence into MS Word there are no grammar check complaints. So, it passes my grammar check condition. Then comes the next test which really isn't part of this thread on punctuation--does it say anything interesting? I would claim that it doesn't. Of course, I'm no expert.

[FranzS]

That's one poem I don't like (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-red-wheelbarrow/) but it is an example of line breaks splitting up the following sentence:


So much depends upon a red wheelbarrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens.

If I put the sentence into MS Word there are no grammar check complaints. So, it passes my grammar check condition. Then comes the next test which really isn't part of this thread on punctuation--does it say anything interesting? I would claim that it doesn't. Of course, I'm no expert.

Funnily enough, now you've written that without line breaks, I prefer it to the original poem. It's more immediate, somehow - in fact this is the first time I've had a clear image of the whole scene in my head.

I don't think the poem is a masterpiece; it's famous because it's original and provocative, not because it's a manifestation of great artistic skill.

Does it say anything interesting? It conveys those moments of inexplicable visionary intensity we sometimes feel in response to scenes or stimuli. In these situations, we "feel" a meaning, but we can't say what the meaning is.

As I say, I prefer it without the line breaks, which seem arbitrary to me, and disturb the rhythm of the sentence. Of course, if he'd written it without line breaks, publishers would have said, "Get out of here, that's not a poem!"

While we're on the subject of William Carlos Williams, I think his poem "This Is Just To Say" (http://wonderingminstrels.blogspot.co.uk/1999/11/this-is-just-to-say-william-carlos.html) does benefit from unconventional punctuation. Why does he not punctuate the last stanza, which would make it look like this? -

Forgive me.
They were delicious
- so sweet
and so cold.

Something is lost here - the punctuation makes the poet seem rational and reasonable, really wanting to explain himself. The actual poem, on the other hand, produces a trance-like impression, emphasising the sense that the poet just couldn't help himself:

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold.

Obviously, the double meanings of the words "sweet" and "cold" are the key to this poem, and the lack of punctuation emphasises the sense of ambiguity. I think it's brilliant.

[JBI]

Linebreaking is a form of punctuation.

[YesNo]

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold.

Obviously, the double meanings of the words "sweet" and "cold" are the key to this poem, and the lack of punctuation emphasises the sense of ambiguity. I think it's brilliant.
He is probably going to get his butt kicked for eating those plums. :)

I see the "sweet" and "cold" might be a way to characterize his wife as well. Prior to eating the plums, she might be "sweet". Afterwards, perhaps "cold".

However, what I have done in the above paragraph is added meaning that was not in the poem to complete it. Nowhere does he mention a wife or that she was even happy being with him before he ate the plums. These additions are what the poem lacks, but I would claim should have included.

Regarding the punctuation, in this case the poem could be read aloud to someone and so they wouldn't even need to see it on the page. I think where the issue of punctuation matters is where the poem makes little sense without viewing it or attempting to read it.


Linebreaking is a form of punctuation.
Yes, it could be considered a form of punctuation defining that as any visual way the words are placed on a page.

I think the issue with punctuation and, especially non-metrical, poetry goes back to the old manual typewriter in which you inserted a piece of paper. The range of formatting that such a manual typewriter could make with a poem is considered part of the poem. So if the poet does a carriage return, that is part of the poem although it would not be part of the prose written on that typewriter.

Any other formatting seen today such as font or color would not be considered part of the poem and it would be left to the editor who prints the poem or displays it on the internet to decide how best to do that.

[FranzS]

He is probably going to get his butt kicked for eating those plums. :)

I see the "sweet" and "cold" might be a way to characterize his wife as well. Prior to eating the plums, she might be "sweet". Afterwards, perhaps "cold".

However, what I have done in the above paragraph is added meaning that was not in the poem to complete it. Nowhere does he mention a wife or that she was even happy being with him before he ate the plums. These additions are what the poem lacks, but I would claim should have included.


Hm. I don't buy that, to be honest. The poem doesn't need completing. The meaning is quite clear: it's making a statement about the poet, not about his partner (or whoever the owner of the plums is). If you add in commentary on the partner, you are missing the point.

It's really very subtle, because the poet goes immediately from apologising, to recalling the deliciousness of the plums: he can't even think about the other person long enough to properly apologise. The tone of the poem is both "sweet" and "cold": there is a calculated charm to the poet's confession, but the last lines show that he feels no real remorse for his misdemeanour. The words "sweet" and "cold" seem to pop into his head as a subconcious verdict on his own behaviour.



Regarding the punctuation, in this case the poem could be read aloud to someone and so they wouldn't even need to see it on the page. I think where the issue of punctuation matters is where the poem makes little sense without viewing it or attempting to read it.

Thrice NO! The punctuation and line breaks are crucial. YES, you can understand the meaning of the sentences if you hear the poem read aloud, but the punctuation and line breaks add another level of subtlety, and turn it into a poem.

It's essential, in order to properly appreciate poetry, to concentrate not just on MEANING but also on EFFECT. In other words, you have to "listen", not simply read; you have to watch what feelings and images surface from your subconscious as you read.

Above all, the reader shouldn't rush into assuming they understand a poem. If they interpret it as a bunch of easily comprehensible but uninteresting statements, maybe they have missed something.

[FranzS]

Note to moderators: I notice that two of my posts have been amalgamated into a single post (#21). Is this normal practice? I wanted to make two separate, easily-digestible points, not cram everything I had to say into a single long post. Is this not approved of?

[YesNo]

Thrice NO! The punctuation and line breaks are crucial. YES, you can understand the meaning of the sentences if you hear the poem read aloud, but the punctuation and line breaks add another level of subtlety, and turn it into a poem.

It's essential, in order to properly appreciate poetry, to concentrate not just on MEANING but also on EFFECT. In other words, you have to "listen", not simply read; you have to watch what feelings and images surface from your subconscious as you read.

Above all, the reader shouldn't rush into assuming they understand a poem. If they interpret it as a bunch of easily comprehensible but uninteresting statements, maybe they have missed something.
I can't remember at the moment how it was punctuated but I do remember the fact that he ate the plums before breakfast.

I agree with you about the need to use the subconscious, and we do that without really being conscious of it.

[jajdude]

Hey, it's up to the writer.

[My2cents]

That's one poem I don't like (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-red-wheelbarrow/) but it is an example of line breaks splitting up the following sentence:


So much depends upon a red wheelbarrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens.

If I put the sentence into MS Word there are no grammar check complaints. So, it passes my grammar check condition. Then comes the next test which really isn't part of this thread on punctuation--does it say anything interesting? I would claim that it doesn't. Of course, I'm no expert.

OK perhaps a bad example.

Then what about Ezra Pound's "In the Station of the Metro." I mean does it really matter that he's putting a period at the end of the poem or not? (strict punctuation rules would dictate no period as the poem isn't even a sentence.) And according to MS Word, the poem is grammatically and punctuation wise a no-no.

As to "The Red Wheelbarrow," I think it's a fine poem with an indelible imagery which in itself is enough in a poem of what--21 syllables(?)

[cacian]

Hey, it's up to the writer.

agreed.

[YesNo]

Hey, it's up to the writer.
I think the punctuation is up to the publisher, not the writer. For most poems the writer and publisher are the same person. We write the poem and then we publish it on forum like Lit Net. When someone else publishes our poetry, then the roles split.

To look at this differently, consider the following poem:


Mary had a little lamb.
Its fleece was white as snow
And everywhere that Mary went,
The lamb was sure to go.


Is the following a different poem just because it is presented differently?


mary had a little lamb its fleece was white as snow
and everywhere that mary went the lamb was sure to go


Or is the following a different poem?

MARY had a little lamb.


Its

fleece
was white as snow
and everywhere
that MARY went, the
lamb was sure to go.

[YesNo]

OK perhaps a bad example.

Then what about Ezra Pound's "In the Station of the Metro." I mean does it really matter that he's putting a period at the end of the poem or not? (strict punctuation rules would dictate no period as the poem isn't even a sentence.) And according to MS Word, the poem is grammatically and punctuation wise a no-no.

As to "The Red Wheelbarrow," I think it's a fine poem with an indelible imagery which in itself is enough in a poem of what--21 syllables(?)
You're right that what Pound wrote does not pass the MS Word grammar check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Station_of_the_Metro

However, I'm not the one who likes it, so it doesn't matter to me whether he puts a period there or not.

[My2cents]

You're right that what Pound wrote does not pass the MS Word grammar check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Station_of_the_Metro

However, I'm not the one who likes it, so it doesn't matter to me whether he puts a period there or not.

C'mon, don't be an ogre. Give them (Pound and Williams) their due even if you have to pretend. :-)

[YesNo]

C'mon, don't be an ogre. Give them (Pound and Williams) their due even if you have to pretend. :-)
I enjoy pretending. It's a very valuable way to knowledge, however, it doesn't always lead where one's intellect expects it should, which is why it is useful.

I'm not sure what we were discussing or if we are really on different sides in some argument. :)

My position is that I don't much care about the punctuation of a poem. I put in initial caps and line breaks because I am guessing that is what a reader or an editor wants to see, but they are unimportant to the poem. I'd conform to whatever style sheet is required.

What is your position on this?

[Oblivion]

Sometimes punctuation in poetry is important to avoid ambiguity. Personally, I'd use it if it has a 'poetic role' and not because it is an obligation.

[My2cents]

I enjoy pretending. It's a very valuable way to knowledge, however, it doesn't always lead where one's intellect expects it should, which is why it is useful.

I'm not sure what we were discussing or if we are really on different sides in some argument. :)

My position is that I don't much care about the punctuation of a poem. I put in initial caps and line breaks because I am guessing that is what a reader or an editor wants to see, but they are unimportant to the poem. I'd conform to whatever style sheet is required.

What is your position on this?

Personally, I'll mind all my Qs and Ps and dot all my Is and Ts if only to avoid drawing attention to the strange formatting.

But, I'm convinced punctuation has more to do with convenience than art. A true artist can take liberties with it and make it (the punctuation) irrelevant.

[YesNo]

I think we basically agree, My2cents.

[MorpheusSandman]

Whatever a poet decides to include in a poem is important; whatever a poet decides not to include in a poem is important. If any part of the technique and form, including punctuation or lack thereof, isn't working for the poem it's working against it. It's really as simple as that. I like the extra dynamic that punctuation gives to a piece. They give you greater control over rhythm, over a reader's thoughts (what words they pause on, eg), over how connected the various clauses are, etc. I think punctuation is most valuable in metrical poetry where meter determines where the line ends. When meter is determining that you need something to control the clauses and sentences across multiple lines. In free verse, line breaks can become an all purpose punctuation device, and the lack of punctuation gives emphasis to the importance of the line break and the ambiguity between lines. The great free verse poets almost always use that ambiguity of line breaking punctuation to its fullest advantage. Another approach to no punctuation is a poet like WS Merwin who uses the lack of punctuation to recreate the fluid dynamicism of a mind in thought.


although I use many poetic conventions, I don't use capital letters at the starts of lines. In a way I feel I should, because I'm a bit of a traditionalist; but when I tried it, the poems looked archaic because it's so uncommon these days.My reason for capitalizing the first words of new lines is mostly one of laziness: I do it because Word auto-caps the first word whenever I start a new line! This is actually one of the few aspects of poetry I've never given much thought to. I see the capping of first words of lines as a stylistic thing more so than a formal one, but, to me, I think it almost looks stranger to see a line begin uncapped than capped... maybe because the idea of uncapping the beginnings of the line makes something read more like prose, so I'm instantly aware that the line of prose was just "snapped," as to where if it's capped it seems like it's starting a new thought, even if the thought is actually running on from the last line.


My point is that punctuation is remedial stuff. If punctuation is the focus, then obviously what's at issue isn't art.Punctuation isn't remedial in the hands of masters. Sure, if you just want to use it in the most basic, traditional way possible it's remedial, but I often find myself pausing and asking myself whether it's better to put a comma in or leave it out, or whether a period or semi-colon is better, or whatnot. At such points it is very much about the art because I'm trying to decide which choice will enhance the feeling/idea I'm trying to get across. Really, any component that is apart of an art-form is, well, part of the art itself, so to say that focusing on punctuation means the "issue isn't the art" seems nonsensical to me.


That's one poem I don't like (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-red-wheelbarrow/) but it is an example of line breaks splitting up the following sentence:


So much depends upon a red wheelbarrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens.

If I put the sentence into MS Word there are no grammar check complaints. So, it passes my grammar check condition. Then comes the next test which really isn't part of this thread on punctuation--does it say anything interesting? I would claim that it doesn't. Of course, I'm no expert.Red Wheelbarrow is one of those poems a reader cannot possibly hope to appreciate if they don't really take the time to analyze its form, and it really is an ingenious experiment in the possibilities of expressive ambiguity in free-verse poetry and imagism. Like the best poetry, it can be analyzed from several angles, but, at it's core, I really see it as a poem that uses form to find a perfect balance between chaos and order and, depending on what elements you analyze, it can seem perfectly orderly, or completely chaotic.

If you analyze it in terms of stanzas, lines or word-count it's perfectly orderly: There are 8 lines of 4 stanzas of 2 lines each (2, 4, 8), and there is a consistent pattern of 3 words/1 word for each stanza (note how the 1 and 3 fills in the gap between 2 and 4). However, if you analyze it in terms of rhythm or syllables, it breaks down into chaos. The rhythm begins as perfect iambs: so MUCH dePENDS uPON, but by the next stanza we're alreadying deviating: a RED WHEEL / BARrow. The third is different again: GLAZED with RAIN / WATer. The fourth is different again as well: beSIDE the WHITE / CHICKens. Likewise, the syllable count goes: 4/2, 3/2, 3/2, 4/2, so there is an order of sorts here, but the 4/2 & 3/2 difference means there's no consistency (so let's call it a median between chaos and order). Note also how if you add these syllables up you get 5 or 6 total syllables in each stanza, so now we have a pattern of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 going in terms of words, total lines, total stanzas, and lines-per-stanza; what about 7? The only place seven is found is in the letters, and there's only one word that has 7 letters: depends, and is it accidental that the ONLY verb in the whole poem fills out the 1-8 pattern with 7 letters? I don't think so, but everyone can decide for themselves (it's also interesting to note how "depends" ends with "ends," but I'm more likely to chalk that up to legitimate coincidence).

But if this is looking at the minutest of details, perhaps a more relevant illustration of the order/chaos relationship is what is created by the line breaks. The poem begins in the realm of the entirely predictable: So much depends / upon. Now, I say predictable because every time you hear someone say "something depends" it is always followed by "on" or "upon", so at the first line break we KNOW what the next word is going to be. But there's also an expectation created by the stanza itself: "so much depends upon," so as readers we think, "gee, I wonder what could be so important that so much will depend upon it?"

The next stanza seems to begin to fulfill that expectation: "a red wheel" Now, wheels ARE important things, and have been used as metaphors for the things that turn the universe (ala in William Blake). Red is also a color of great urgency with its association with things like blood. But note what happens with the line break and next word here: barrow. Not "red wheel," but "red wheelbarrow." What we thought was a standalone noun turned out to be the first half of another noun of a completely different device. Notice how this change has also given us our first concrete image: the first stanza is entirely image free, and L1 of S2 is abstract enough, with only its "red wheel," to not be a very precise image. But now with the "red wheelbarrow" we have something entirely tangible, and, not only that, rather mundane. So there's a bit of a shock that we went from "so much depends upon" and the "red wheel" to a simple wheelbarrow.

The third stanza continues this "downward spiral" from the intuited grandness as "glazed with rain" does nothing but fill out the image of the wheelbarrow. But, yet again, our expectations are flustered by the line break, as it's not "glazed with rain" but "glazed with rain water". Here, what we thought was a noun (rain) turns out to be an adjective. Finally, S4 is the ultimate reality grounding. The stanza itself begins with a preposition, for the first time giving us a sense of real space. Note how the first preposition "upon" is an "upward" looking preposition, similar to how the stanza is suggesting something "upward" looking and grand, while "beside" is a horizontal looking preposition, suggesting something along a plane rather than above it, so we've both "come down" and "spread out" in our vision. But L1 of S4 also ends with a clear adjective in "white." For the first time the line ending leaves us with an obviously incomplete thought. So we've gone from the predictability of "depends / upon," to the sneaky ambiguity of "wheel / barrow" and "rain / water," to now, finally, the overt ambiguity of "white". The fact that we end with "chickens" as the last word to a poem that begins with "so much depends upon" is rather comical if you stop and think about it.

If William K. Wimstatt was right when he said that sophistication of form is sophistication of thought, then Red Wheelbarrow IS sophistication of thought, primarily in how it manipulates a reader's intuitive response to the words through its careful patterns and line-breaks. It takes us from the lofty and abstract to the mundane and tangible, from the predictable to failed predictability to complete unpredictability, all while balancing our sense of order and chaos. If that doesn't count as poetic genius, I don't know what does.

[YesNo]

I agree with you, MorpheusSandman, about the use of capitals at the beginning of the line. I would carry it further to all punctuation including line breaks and leave those decisions with the editor or publisher or illustrator--that is, with any of the people involved with the final visual product.

We probably take different views on this because of what we see poetry as being. In your case, I think, poetry involves some visual element whereas in mine it is sound and meaning with very little if any visual component.

Regarding Red Wheelbarrow, it reminds me of a sermon I once heard by a Protestant pastor. The pastor recited two sentences from some Gospel text. After I heard those I wondered how is it possible for anyone to entertain and instruct an audience for 40 minutes on that, but he did. He showed how the text related to salvation history going all the way back to Genesis and emphasized that humans are not righteous in themselves among other things. He was a good lecturer and left the people listening to him with something to associate the words in the text to. He gave them what they came there to hear.

The same thing happens with the Red Wheelbarrow. It is a canonical text and spending a lot of time going over it because of its stature allows the reader to add many things to it that might not be in the text but might be interesting patterns worth noting. Those seeking information about the poem would expect to receive pretty much what you provided.

In the end, I would ask myself is there enough meaning in the text to justify one reading it without the added information and I would still have to say that there isn't.

[MorpheusSandman]

We probably take different views on this because of what we see poetry as being. In your case, I think, poetry involves some visual element whereas in mine it is sound and meaning with very little if any visual component.To ignore the visual element of poetry is to ignore almost the entirety of free verse where line breaks dominate over meter and rhyme. In metrical poetry you're correct that the aural element is vastly more important than the visual one, and considering the majority of my writing is metrical I am certainly not one to marginalize the aural elements of poetry. In fact, I very much agree with Auden and Eliot when they talked about how their writing as primarily focused on the rhythm of the language. I always liked Auden's quote that his ideal reader "keeps a look out for curious prosodic fauna like bacchics and choriambs." I'm also a big user (perhaps abuser, depending on whom you ask) of alliteration, assonance, and consonance. However, if you don't learn to appreciate visual elements like line breaks and what this can add to how we react/interpret a poem then you're simply missing out. A great poet like Milton even understood the importance of line breaks in Paradise Lost and made usage of the ambiguities created by line endings all the while writing in verse. I've listened to PL read by Anton Lesser, and there is something lost if you JUST listen to it but don't read along with it and pause slightly at the end of lines.


The same thing happens with the Red Wheelbarrow. It is a canonical text and spending a lot of time going over it because of its stature allows the reader to add many things to it that might not be in the text but might be interesting patterns worth noting...

In the end, I would ask myself is there enough meaning in the text to justify one reading it without the added information and I would still have to say that there isn't.This just annoys the hell out of me... it's possible for anyone who doesn't like a poem to completely ignore any critical analysis of it by saying the same thing. It's nothing but a display of lazy hand waving, a way to avoid engaging with a work and critic intelligently and substantially. It's just too easy to label any interpretation of a work you don't like as "over-interpretation," and then dismiss it as "reading too much into a text" and "adding what isn't there." See, if you really think I've "over-interpreted" Red Wheelbarrow then it behooves you to actually point out what in my interpretation "isn't actually there in the text." Most of what I wrote is actually there, undeniably there. It's not even interpretation but observation. The various numerical patterns, eg, are not "imagined." Were they intended? I don't have any idea. I think it would be a remarkable coincidence if they weren't. It's hardly unheard of that poets pay attention to numerical symmetry in their poetry. In fact, the entire idea of symmetry is one of the oldest ones in the arts, but one that still resonates today both in practice and criticism.

You talk about "meaning in the text" as if the important thing about poetry is some abstract meaning that you can just extract and separate from form: it's not. Cleanth Brooks pretty much buried this notion in The Well-Wrought Urn and, especially, his "The Heresy of Paraphrase" essay. Plus, with the advent of post-structuralism critics have come to realize that poetry is as much about emphasizing the signifier (the materiality of words) over the signified (the meaning, semantics). So much of poetry exists to frustrate penetrating the words to get to the "meaning," and in the wake of that confusion arises a greater awareness of the effect of language and form itself. If all you do with a poem like Red Wheelbarrow is look at the "prose sense" of the meaning then, you're correct, there is no significant meaning. But the important thing isn't this prose-sense meaning, but how the form makes us react to and interpret the words. If the form is having no effect on how you're reading a poem, then you're not even reading poetry. Red Wheelbarrow is a lovely embodiment of the whole imagist and free-verse aesthetic. It emphasizes how abstracts are predictable, but how the concrete materiality of images are powerful, striking, and unpredictable. One can't read that poem without seeing the thing being described, and it's a perfect example of WCW's "No ideas but in things." The poem begins with an idea, but ends with a thing that frustrates that idea, and frustrates our ability to connect the thing to the idea.

[YesNo]

I do think a poem should be displayed visually well on the page. This certainly adds value to the poem and to the reader's enjoyment. This goes way beyond adding line breaks or initial caps. However, I think that is the role of the illustrator or whatever one calls the person creating the layout of the page. It is not the poet's job unless the poet is also the publisher. Also a poem that is recorded should be recited or sung by someone who can perform that task best, and that is not always the poet, especially if singing is involved. This gets a lot of people involved in the final work of art and makes it more than a solitary task. But I may be wrong.

My apologies for annoying you about my dislike for the Red Wheelbarrow. I think Williams did intend the patterns that you mentioned. However, I don't find form that interesting whether it be free verse or some metrical form. I see form as a tool to convey a message to the reader or audience in a pleasing manner. It is the message not the form that matters. But again, I may be wrong.

Edit: When you say "One can't read that poem without seeing the thing being described", I wonder if that is true. Suppose someone provided an illustration of a red wheelbarrow to go with the poem. When you read the poem, that illustration would be in your mind and it would be an image. Without it, you have an idea of a red wheelbarrow not an image of it. I don't know if this is true. I'm just trying to make sense out of it.

[My2cents]

To me, punctuation are rules as to how words should be organized in print. It's only a matter of application, not creation nor art. Anyone can be taught to punctuate to the highest standard. No one can be taught to create art.

[MorpheusSandman]

I do think a poem should be displayed visually well on the page. This certainly adds value to the poem and to the reader's enjoyment. This goes way beyond adding line breaks or initial caps.Oh, well then we're talking about different things. When I was talking about the visual aspect of poetry I was talking about all of the poetic devices that can only be detected on a page, like line-breaks, as opposed to those, like rhythm and rhyme, that can be heard aurally whether it's read on a page or not. But I do think a poet's preference for caps at the beginnings of lines should be respected by a publisher.


However, I don't find form that interesting whether it be free verse or some metrical form. I see form as a tool to convey a message to the reader or audience in a pleasing manner. It is the message not the form that matters. But again, I may be wrong.Well, I think you are very wrong about this. Read Cleanth Brooks' The Well Wrought-Urn (http://www.amazon.com/The-Well-Wrought-Urn-Structure/dp/0156957051/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335268431&sr=8-1-spell) where he discusses this issue while also offering some very good readings of many great poems. I would also recommend Reading Poetry: An Introduction (http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Poetry-Introduction-Tom-Furniss/dp/0582894204/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335268460&sr=1-1) by Furniss and Bath as it stresses the importance of form in poetry.

If I had to sum up my opinion on the matter in short, I would say that if all that matters is relating a message then poetry is a terrible medium to do that. The back-and-forth communication we're doing here or the precise language of science and math are far, far, far better in terms of being able to relate messages. Poetry isn't about relating messages at all, IMO, it's about rendering experiences, thoughts, feelings, and emotions through language and using form to enhance and manipulate how we react to what's being expressed. Poetry without form isn't poetry, IMO.


When you read the poem, that illustration would be in your mind and it would be an image. Without it, you have an idea of a red wheelbarrow not an image of it. Well, it's not a LITERAL image you get from reading the poem, ie, it's not one you see with your eyes, but it's an imagined image based on one's experience with having seen other wheelbarrows. It's no different than when you read any literature and images form in your mind as if you were watching a movie.

[YesNo]

I think I agree with My2cents on the role of punctuation.

As I think about it, MorpheusSandman, I don't really understand the "visual aspect" of poetry or of language in general, including prose. This is not to say that adding an illustration to a poem or story does not make the poem or story more enjoyable.

I don't know much about the Imagist poetic theory and don't have access to the books you reference. If you quote something from these texts maybe we can discuss it.

Regarding images, you write:

Well, it's not a LITERAL image you get from reading the poem, ie, it's not one you see with your eyes, but it's an imagined image based on one's experience with having seen other wheelbarrows. It's no different than when you read any literature and images form in your mind as if you were watching a movie.
When I read, I don't think I see images as if I were in a movie. Perhaps, I'm just not a visually-oriented person.

For example, when I read the word "wheelbarrow", I know what this is, but I don't see it laying down on its side or standing up. I don't see it with or without rust or if it is painted in a certain color. I don't see it as either a tool for cement mixing or one for gardening. I don't see anything specific about it. I'm waiting for the author to tell me more what it is I should be "imagining". Even then it is an "idea" that I am imagining and I am looking for some interesting relationship in the text about this thing that justifies reading it.

If there isn't any relationship that is interesting, why was the wheelbarrow brought to my attention by the author? And if there is such a relationship, how would I imagine that relationship as a specific visual image?

I think the subject of a poem can best be seen as a set of ideas, parts of which might be about things for which an image could more or less be constructed were I an illustrator, but the most interesting parts would likely have little to do with any specific object but be about relationships that mattered to me.

[MorpheusSandman]

I don't really understand the "visual aspect" of poetry or of language in general, including prose. This is not to say that adding an illustration to a poem or story does not make the poem or story more enjoyable.YesNo, I think you misunderstand me when I say "visual aspect" of poetry. I'm not talking about illustrations. Let me try to make this clearer; imagine someone is reading a poem to you. If you're only hearing the poem read, then you can pick up on the rhythms and sounds of the language, but you will not pick up on line-breaks. However, if you're reading a poem on a page, you can pause at the line-breaks and consider how this line-break impacts your understanding of a poem.


I don't know much about the Imagist poetic theory and don't have access to the books you reference. Well, I can't quote entire chapters of these books. I did find an online PDF of Brooks' The Heresy of Paraphrase, (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~rlbeebe/heresy.pdf) but the problem with reading that out of context is that Brooks references the poems that he's analyzed throughout the book. Anyway, the Imagist theory of poetry basically states that images in poetry are more important than anything else. Images are defined as anything in poetry that makes references to things accessible through the senses, so if a poet describes a sound, a smell, a sight, a taste, or the feel of something then that's an image. Keats' poetry is largely famous for his sensuous imagery, especially in poems like To Autumn. The Red Wheelbarrow and Pound's Station at the Metro are good examples of imagism because it strips away everything except for an image (although Pound's could be said to be an image wrapped in a metaphor).


When I read, I don't think I see images as if I were in a movie. Perhaps, I'm just not a visually-oriented person.Oh, well, that's a shame. I thought most people pictured the things they were reading about in their head....


For example, when I read the word "wheelbarrow", I know what this is, but I don't see it laying down on its side or standing up... I'm waiting for the author to tell me more what it is I should be "imagining".You should be imagining a red wheelbarrow glazed with rain water with white chickens surrounding it... it's really that simple.


If there isn't any relationship that is interesting, why was the wheelbarrow brought to my attention by the author?I'm not sure what kind of relationship you're referring to here... The point of imagism is to make us see things we would typically just overlook without having them connected to any other ideas. It's a purity of experience, seeing things like a child might without having it wrapped up in a variety of assumptions and judgments and connotations that we end up polluting our experiences of life with.


I think the subject of a poem can best be seen as a set of ideas...Well, you have a preference for poetry of ideas. That's fine to have as a preference, but it's not everyone's ideal of poetry. I like ideas in poetry just fine, but I also appreciate the new way of seeing that the imagists brought to poetry, and I think something like Red Wheelbarrow is a perfect example of that.

[MorpheusSandman]

To me, punctuation are rules as to how words should be organized in print. They aren't rules, they're more like guidelines (eg, there is no set-in-stone rule about whether one should use a period or semi-colon, and with a few exceptions, commas are frequently completely optional). The art lies in which punctuations you choose to utilize (If any) at various points and how that punctuations affects the reading and/or meaning of the poem.

[YesNo]

YesNo, I think you misunderstand me when I say "visual aspect" of poetry. I'm not talking about illustrations. Let me try to make this clearer; imagine someone is reading a poem to you. If you're only hearing the poem read, then you can pick up on the rhythms and sounds of the language, but you will not pick up on line-breaks. However, if you're reading a poem on a page, you can pause at the line-breaks and consider how this line-break impacts your understanding of a poem.
I think I understand. You are mainly interested in line breaks and initial caps or other punctuation that one might be able to do on an old manual typewriter in which a sheet of paper was inserted. You are not interested in the visual display that one might get with different fonts for example.

When I bring in illustrations in general, I'm trying to emphasize that all of those punctuation marks are "illustrations". I agree with you that there are better ways to punctuate a poem on a page than others, however, I disagree in thinking that a poem punctuated in one way is a different poem from one punctuated in another way. Maybe you don't think so either?


Well, I can't quote entire chapters of these books. I did find an online PDF of Brooks' The Heresy of Paraphrase, (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~rlbeebe/heresy.pdf) but the problem with reading that out of context is that Brooks references the poems that he's analyzed throughout the book. Anyway, the Imagist theory of poetry basically states that images in poetry are more important than anything else. Images are defined as anything in poetry that makes references to things accessible through the senses, so if a poet describes a sound, a smell, a sight, a taste, or the feel of something then that's an image. Keats' poetry is largely famous for his sensuous imagery, especially in poems like To Autumn. The Red Wheelbarrow and Pound's Station at the Metro are good examples of imagism because it strips away everything except for an image (although Pound's could be said to be an image wrapped in a metaphor).
Thanks for the reference. I'll try to go over it today and give you some reactions. :)



Well, you have a preference for poetry of ideas. That's fine to have as a preference, but it's not everyone's ideal of poetry. I like ideas in poetry just fine, but I also appreciate the new way of seeing that the imagists brought to poetry, and I think something like Red Wheelbarrow is a perfect example of that.
Imagism isn't really new anymore. I think it is about 100 years old now. I wonder if poets are still thinking in terms of it whether they write free verse or metrical poetry. Most of the poetry I read on this site seem to me to contain ideas more than images.

[My2cents]

They aren't rules, they're more like guidelines (eg, there is no set-in-stone rule about whether one should use a period or semi-colon, and with a few exceptions, commas are frequently completely optional). The art lies in which punctuations you choose to utilize (If any) at various points and how that punctuations affects the reading and/or meaning of the poem.

I think you're in for a shock. There are books dedicated entirely to the specific rules that apply to punctuations, including three dotted and four dotted ellipses--if you care to look.

My point is once you know them, you know them...just like a multiplication table.

[AuntShecky]

Punctuation (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56601&highlight=Dirty+Guide+Punctuation) is a tool that aids both writer and reader in establishing meaning.
One can do a lot with a colon or a semi-colon. I've found that contemporary
writers use the exclamation point far too often. Too much emphasis defeats
the purpose!!!! (See what I mean? One ! is sufficient, and even there rarely.)

A comma is a pause, not quite a full-stop. It shows the reader, especially one who's reading aloud, to take a breath.

[Cunninglinguist]

Most of the poetry I read on this site seem to me to contain ideas more than images.

Isn't most of poetry the marriage of the two in metaphor? I've never heard of someone writing dry and literal philosophy, for example, or the discussion of a scientific finding in verse...and even if it's been done I would submit it's not really poetry.


Anyway, the Imagist theory of poetry basically states that images in poetry are more important than anything else. Images are defined as anything in poetry that makes references to things accessible through the senses, so if a poet describes a sound, a smell, a sight, a taste, or the feel of something then that's an image.

I think a further and important distinction can be drawn. Concrete nouns can convey "hard" and "soft" images, corresponding to the degree of abstractness the meaning of the word has. For example, saying apple generically is softer than saying granny smith apple, which contains a conception with further sensuous details. I suppose Imagism would rather you use granny smith apple than just apple, since it's more direct than just "apple," which can suggest other varieties of apples. But, to qualify, this is somewhat debatable. Imagism deals first with directness and directing the audience towards something, not necessarily Maximalism.

[YesNo]

I suppose some punctuation is necessary to make sure the meaning is unambiguous. One wouldn't want to skip all periods or commas. Spaces between words are also useful. I agree with AuntShecky that only one exclamation point is necessary or even desirable in most cases.

I was trying to read the chapter in Cleanth Brooks's The Well Wrought Urn that MorpheusSandman referenced. It seems that Brooks is trying to find some objective way to tell whether something he is reading is poetic or not. He asks, "For what is it to be poetic?" He also doesn't like "paraphrases" of the content of a poem and notes "the resistance which any good poem sets up against all attempts to paraphrase it". I suspect I would agree with that: The content of a poem is not enough to determine that something is a poem.

In the back of my mind, I don't know why anyone would want to paraphrase a poem in the first place.

I suspect Brooks is looking for some objective way to place strings of words into something like the following four containers:


(1) Poetry but not Prose
(2) Prose but not Poetry
(3) Both Poetry and Prose
(4) Neither Poetry nor Prose

Any string of words, punctuated or not, should be able to fit into one and only one of these containers. The problem is that each of us would fill the containers differently since we would not likely agree on a definition of what makes a string of words poetic.

I also think I agree with Cunninglinguist when he writes: "Isn't most of poetry the marriage of the two [ideas and images] in metaphor?" My interest in content is that any string of words wanting to be called a "poem" should have some meaning so it could be called a communication. It should make sense no matter how coated it is with irony, lies, truths, images or whatever.

[MorpheusSandman]

When I bring in illustrations in general, I'm trying to emphasize that all of those punctuation marks are "illustrations"... I disagree in thinking that a poem punctuated in one way is a different poem from one punctuated in another way.Calling punctuation "illustrations" seems positively bizarre to me. Punctuation is an integral part of language, and as an integral part of the language itself, I'm not sure why you would call them "illustrations." At least, they're no more illustrative than any letter or word is.

Punctuation CAN radically change the meaning of a poem. Let me give you a good example from a vilanelle I recently wrote. The refrain is:

History tells us that we’re not there yet,
...
We have to learn before we can forget.

The final couplet is:

Maybe we’ll learn we never get there, yet
It’s still worth learning things you don’t forget.

Now, if you notice, the major difference between the first example and the second is the comma before "yet," and it completely changes how one reads both line. If you remove that comma, you have a completely different meaning.


Imagism isn't really new anymore. I think it is about 100 years old now. I wonder if poets are still thinking in terms of it whether they write free verse or metrical poetry. Most of the poetry I read on this site seem to me to contain ideas more than images.No, you're right, imagism isn't new any more, but if you read poetry in context it seems like every revolution is a breath of fresh air from what had become stale before it. Reading Wordsworth and Coleridge's Lyrical Ballads after being immersed in Augustan couplets is a breath of fresh air, reading Pound and Eliot after being immersed in romanticism is a breath of fresh air. To me, each revolution gives us a new way of thinking about poetry.

Personally, I still do consider whether or not to write in meter or free verse. To me, every poetic device (meter, images, metaphor, free verse, etc.) are all just tools for expression, and the goal of any artist is to always choose the best tool for the job. Some spend their lives mastering one tool, like Shakespeare did with the sonnet, or Dickinson did with the ballad meter, and some spend their lives trying to become proficient in a wide-range of forms, like Auden or Yeats.


In the back of my mind, I don't know why anyone would want to paraphrase a poem in the first place. For those who grew up studying poetry in school (something unheard of these days), the common thing teachers would always ask was "what does the poet mean by X?" Well, this is nothing but an invite to state what they're saying in other words, a paraphrase. What Brooks is objecting to is the idea that by paraphrasing the basic meaning of a poem you've really even begun to understand what the poem is about, and he proceeds to argue throughout that book that all of the poetic devices poets use (form, metaphor, images, irony, etc.) all modify and manipulate the meaning of the poem to the point that you can't paraphrase it because paraphrasing it would mean removing all of the meanings and connotations that those poetic devices create.


I think you're in for a shock. There are books dedicated entirely to the specific rules that apply to punctuations, including three dotted and four dotted ellipses--if you care to look.I'm hardly in for a shock because I know of those books, but language is much too mutable to be fixed with absolute unbreakable rules. Some things become more ambiguous over times, other becomes more definite. Something like the semi-colon has really fallen out of use; few people seem to know how to use it "correctly" and most seem to prefer periods or commas. Personally, I think it's a good middle-ground between a mere pause and a complete stop. But I doubt you'll find any book that says when you have to use a semi-colon over a period or comma.


Isn't most of poetry the marriage of the two in metaphor? I've never heard of someone writing dry and literal philosophy, for example, or the discussion of a scientific finding in verse...I don't know about "most poetry," but I think we consider most great poetry to find interesting ways of melding ideas into metaphoric images. But they're by no means mutually inclusive. You can certainly express ideas in poetry without metaphor and images (much of Pope's Essay on Criticism and Essay on Man fall under that category; I humorously remember one critic referring to Pope as the "best prose writer in English" because he didn't consider his verse essays real poetry), and you can have images without explicit metaphor (like Red Wheelbarrow, or Keats' To Autumn; though it's debatable about whether such things can be symbols and therefor metaphoric to an extent).


I think a further and important distinction can be drawn. Concrete nouns can convey "hard" and "soft" images, corresponding to the degree of abstractness the meaning of the word has. Very true. I've often thought that there is a spectrum between abstraction and image. Do you know of any books that make this distinction and try to work it into some kind of theory? Because it's something I almost never see addressed in intro books.

[YesNo]

Punctuation CAN radically change the meaning of a poem. Let me give you a good example from a vilanelle I recently wrote. The refrain is:

History tells us that we’re not there yet,
...
We have to learn before we can forget.

The final couplet is:

Maybe we’ll learn we never get there, yet
It’s still worth learning things you don’t forget.

Now, if you notice, the major difference between the first example and the second is the comma before "yet," and it completely changes how one reads both line. If you remove that comma, you have a completely different meaning.

I completely agree with you about the need for punctuation in the case you mentioned above. Here's a question to see whether we agree or not about what I think is the question of this thread. Consider the following two strings of words.

Here is the first string of words:

mary had a little lamb. its fleece was white as snow and everywhere that mary went the lamb was sure to go.

Here is the second string of words:

MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB. ITS FLEECE WAS WHITE AS SNOW AND EVERYWHERE THAT MARY WENT THE LAMB WAS SURE TO GO.

Would you consider these to be different poems because of the difference in punctuation?

I use the word "illustration" to include more marks on a page than what one of those old manual typewriters could make which could add value to a published poem for the readers.

[AuntShecky]

.

I was trying to read the chapter in Cleanth Brooks's The Well Wrought Urn that MorpheusSandman referenced. It seems that Brooks is trying to find some objective way to tell whether something he is reading is poetic or not. He asks, "For what is it to be poetic?" He also doesn't like "paraphrases" of the content of a poem and notes "the resistance which any good poem sets up against all attempts to paraphrase it". I suspect I would agree with that: The content of a poem is not enough to determine that something is a poem.

In the back of my mind, I don't know why anyone would want to paraphrase a poem in the first place.


I also think I agree with Cunninglinguist when he writes: "Isn't most of poetry the marriage of the two [ideas and images] in metaphor?" My interest in content is that any string of words wanting to be called a "poem" should have some meaning so it could be called a communication. It should make sense no matter how coated it is with irony, lies, truths, images or whatever.

My understanding of New Criticism (which isn't really all that new now, over a half-century old) is that the so-called "marriage" in the poem isn't so much between idea and image but form and content. If a poem is good, you can't separate (or divorce or set asunder ) the meaning of the poem (what's being said) from its expression -- the "what" and the "how" are inextricably linked. Hence, the statement from Archibald MacLeish (I think) --"A poem must not mean but be;" the question from John Ciardi--"How does a Poem Mean?" and the injunction from Cleanth Brooks against paraphrasing.

It's a little like what comics say about jokes -- if you try to break one down to find out why it makes you laugh, it isn't funny any more. (But we still can try to analyze poems in order to see what they're saying and how they're saying it-- at the same time. If we couldn't do that, English departments wouldn't exist --or would that be such a bad thing?)

[miyako73]

I completely agree with you about the need for punctuation in the case you mentioned above. Here's a question to see whether we agree or not about what I think is the question of this thread. Consider the following two strings of words.

Here is the first string of words:

mary had a little lamb. its fleece was white as snow and everywhere that mary went the lamb was sure to go.

Here is the second string of words:

MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB. ITS FLEECE WAS WHITE AS SNOW AND EVERYWHERE THAT MARY WENT THE LAMB WAS SURE TO GO.

Would you consider these to be different poems because of the difference in punctuation?

I use the word "illustration" to include more marks on a page than what one of those old manual typewriters could make which could add value to a published poem for the readers.

I'm not sure if capitalization is related to punctuation rules besides a sentence must begin with a capital letter. The two sentence you illustrated could differ only in terms of emotion employed by a reader. If read meekly, the message of the sentence soothes. If read loud, it will convey obnoxious confidence that is almost boasting.

Punctuation marks, at least in my understanding and non-technical usage, are abbreviated emotions. I use "...." when I'm speechless maybe from shame or sadness, "?" when I'm doubtful and unsure, "!" when I'm happy, ":" when I have the urge to voice out my reasons, ";" when my thoughts are uncontrollable and abundant, and "." when I'm confident and sure with finality.

Take care.

[miyako73]

I completely agree with you about the need for punctuation in the case you mentioned above. Here's a question to see whether we agree or not about what I think is the question of this thread. Consider the following two strings of words.

Here is the first string of words:

mary had a little lamb. its fleece was white as snow and everywhere that mary went the lamb was sure to go.

Here is the second string of words:

MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB. ITS FLEECE WAS WHITE AS SNOW AND EVERYWHERE THAT MARY WENT THE LAMB WAS SURE TO GO.

Would you consider these to be different poems because of the difference in punctuation?

I use the word "illustration" to include more marks on a page than what one of those old manual typewriters could make which could add value to a published poem for the readers.

I'm not sure if capitalization is related to punctuation rules. The two sentence you illustrated could differ only in terms of emotions employed by a reader. If read meekly, the message of the sentence soothes. If read loud, it will convey obnoxious confidence that is almost boasting.

Punctuation marks, at least in my understanding and non-technical usage, are abbreviated emotions. I use "...." when I'm speechless maybe from shame or sadness, "?" when I'm doubtful and unsure, "!" when I'm happy, ":" when I have the urge to voice out my reasons, ";" when my thoughts are uncontrollable and abundant, and "." when I'm confident and sure with finality.

Take care.

[YesNo]

It did seem like Brooks was talking about "form" and "content" rather than "image" and "idea".

[miyako73]

Just want to share this. The Filipino poet, Jose Garcia Villa, a contemporary and friend of E.E. Cummings, wrote this poem that is considered as one of the early modernist and avant-garde works of poetry in my country.


The Bashful One




,

[YesNo]

Villa's poem reminds me of a painting I saw in the Art Institute in Chicago some years ago called "White on White on White". It was all white. I can't remember the artist or if that was the real name of it, but I do remember that it looked white.

[MorpheusSandman]

mary had a little lamb. its fleece was white as snow and everywhere that mary went the lamb was sure to go.


MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB. ITS FLEECE WAS WHITE AS SNOW AND EVERYWHERE THAT MARY WENT THE LAMB WAS SURE TO GO.

Would you consider these to be different poems because of the difference in punctuation? I'm with miyako whom stated that these two sentences don't illustrate a difference in punctuation. Capitalization and the rules that govern it are completely different than punctuation (! , : ; ...) and the rules that govern them.


My understanding of New Criticism (which isn't really all that new now, over a half-century old) is that the so-called "marriage" in the poem isn't so much between idea and image but form and content.Exactly. New Criticism is quite old now, but still influential. Probably the two finest critics of modern poetry, Helen Vendler and Christopher Ricks, are both closest to the New Criticism school than any other, though perhaps they're not quite as stringent as Brooks, Empson, Richards, Wimsatt, et al. who tried to eliminate all biographical and historical considerations completely.


(But we still can try to analyze poems... If we couldn't do that, English departments wouldn't exist --or would that be such a bad thing?)I guess the answer to that question would entirely depend what one thinks of academia and criticism when it comes to poetry. Personally, I was a critic before I was a poet, so I've always been very interested in the theoretical aspects of what makes a poem (or a film, or a piece of music, etc.) work, and I love picking stuff apart and incorporating the interesting aspects into my own work. I certainly tremendously value the writings and work of the best critics out there, and I credit the aforementioned Vendler with teaching me the majority of what I know about the art-form.

Of course, there is an eternal chasm between theory and practice. It's extraordinarily rare to find someone who is both a great critic and a great practitioner of the art they criticize; TS Eliot was a phenom in that regard.

[YesNo]

I'm with miyako whom stated that these two sentences don't illustrate a difference in punctuation. Capitalization and the rules that govern it are completely different than punctuation (! , : ; ...) and the rules that govern them.

If capitalization doesn't count, do line breaks?

Consider this string of words:


Mary had a little lamb.
Its fleece was white as snow
And everywhere that Mary went
The lamb was sure to do.

And then this string of words:


Mary had a little lamb. Its fleece was white as snow
and everywhere that Mary when the lamb was sure to go.


Are they different poems?

[MorpheusSandman]

If capitalization doesn't count, do line breaks?

Consider this string of words: ... Are they different poems?Line breaks certainly count as a type of punctuation, but they count differently in different poems. In some poems, the line breaks are crucial in terms of reading into the meaning, while in others it may be more about rhythm or something else entirely. In Mary Had a Little Lamb, the rhythm is classic ballad meter, a 4-beat/3-beat pattern. 4-beat patterns dominate English lyric and song, and the earliest English verse grew out of 4-beat traditions (Beowulf's alliterative prosody). 4-beat creates a distinct sing-song rhythm that is inescapable. The interesting thing about ballad meter is that it plays off this expectation by leaving the last beat of the sequence silent, making us pause on it before we move on to the next line.

So, getting back to Mary's Lamb, your first iteration is the classic ballad meter form. The first 4-beat line pairs with the second 3-beat line and we pause at the end of the 3-beat line for the silent, unexpressed 4th beat. When you instead stretch this 7-beat pattern out to a single line, you do de-emphasize this pattern, although readers may slip into it intuitively anyway. What I think the second version does is not allow as much for that invisible last beat. If you read the second line, eg, as one line, you don't hear the 4/3 pattern as much.

So I wouldn't say they're different poems in terms of meaning, but I do think they're slightly different rhythmically. A better example of someone who exploited line-breaks and the expectations created by the ballad rhythm to its utmost would be Emily Dickinson. One could cite countless examples, but one of her more playful excursions was in "I like to see it lap the Miles:"
I like to see it lap the Miles -
And lick the Valleys up -
And stop to feed itself at Tanks -
And then - prodigious step

Around a Pile of Mountains -
And supercilious peer
In Shanties - by the sides of Roads -
And then a Quarry pare

To fit its sides
Complaining all the while
In horrid - hooting stanza -
Then chase itself down Hill -

And neigh like Boanerges -
Then - punctual as a Star
Stop - docile and omnipotent
At its own stable door -There are numerous examples in this one poem, but I'll point out two: the first comes at the end of S1 and the beginning of S2:

And then - prodigious step

Around a Pile of Mountains -

Instead of ending the sense at L4, as is typical with this meter, Dickinson "steps" the sense all the way over the first stanza and into the second stanza, which mirrors what she's describing about the train "stepping around a pile of mountains". If you change this to:

And then - prodigious step Around a Pile of Mountains

then it loses a lot of its affect. You can see a similar device here:

And then a Quarry pare

To fit its sides

Just like she's describing the train paring a quarry, the first line of S3 is "pared" to only 2 beats ("To fit its sides"). One last example would be:

punctual as a Star
Stop

where it's almost as if "Star" becomes an adjective ("Star stop") to the noun "Stop", rather than being a noun followed by the verb "Stop". It's these kind of playful ambiguities that line-breaks can create that, if you wrote it down as prose, you'd lose. I think writing the above as "punctual as a star, stop" is much less effective than the way Dickinson wrote it.

[My2cents]

History tells us that we’re not there yet,
...
We have to learn before we can forget.

The final couplet is:

Maybe we’ll learn we never get there, yet
It’s still worth learning things you don’t forget.


What I'm trying to say comes down to this: If you had left the comma out altogether, an astute reader would be able to infer where the comma should be placed depending on context (from the lines previous and/or following). But that's a lot of needless work, which is what punctuation does well to eliminate.

[MorpheusSandman]

What I'm trying to say comes down to this: If you had left the comma out altogether, an astute reader would be able to infer where the comma should be placed depending on context (from the lines previous and/or following). But that's a lot of needless work, which is what punctuation does well to eliminate.Actually, in that context the reader would never be able to infer that the comma should go before "yet" since it's the only line in the poem that puts a comma before "yet" and has the "yet" meaning attached to the following line rather than the line it's on. Saying "not there yet" and "yet it's still worth knowing" are two different things.

Anyway, punctuation does eliminate such ambiguities, but they can also perpetuate them like in Dickinson's work.

[My2cents]

The line break makes it tricky, and if as you say the preceding 'yets' all have commas before them, conditioning the reader to the pattern, it's conceivable no one would get it right. Conceivable. (Some one may catch the dissonance however miniscule and be crazy enough to pursue it's resolution to the ends of the earth--and there such people, I have no doubts.)

[cacian]

A punctuation question:

What would you say one would put after an exclamation or question mark?
a capital letter or just a small capital?

example
What is one supposed to do? ring a bell or dance around?
Ring or ring?

[YesNo]

I would put "Ring" since it would make the grammar checker refrain from marking the area in red and that is what I think someone else, whether reader, publisher or editor, would want to see.

As a poem, I don't think it matters whether "Ring" is used or "ring", however, it does matter for the presentation which is where the editor or publisher make the decisions. Most of the time the author is also the one who publishes the poem by posting it on a forum and so the same person is doing two tasks.

[MorpheusSandman]

example
What is one supposed to do? ring a bell or dance around?
Ring or ring?In that example it's "Ring," but if you wrote it: "What is one supposed to do: ring a bell or dance around" then it would be "ring." You can put a colon before an either/or choice and follow that with a lower-case and question mark at the end. You may want to ask AuntShecky, but I'm pretty sure the latter version would actually be, technically, grammatically correct (I could be wrong as it's been a while since I've studied grammar) because in your example you're making two separate questions: "What is one supposed to do?" and "Ring a bell or dance around?" when, given the context, the two options "Ring a bell or dance around" is connected to the question "What is one supposed to do?".

[cacian]

I would put "Ring" since it would make the grammar checker refrain from marking the area in red and that is what I think someone else, whether reader, publisher or editor, would want to see.

As a poem, I don't think it matters whether "Ring" is used or "ring", however, it does matter for the presentation which is where the editor or publisher make the decisions. Most of the time the author is also the one who publishes the poem by posting it on a forum and so the same person is doing two tasks.

Thank you YesNo.
I had always questioned the capital usage srtaight after a qestion mark because it did not look right to me.
About the marking in red is a very recent thing I started to notice.
I never considered a ! or a? as a full stop before.

[cacian]

In that example it's "Ring," but if you wrote it: "What is one supposed to do: ring a bell or dance around" then it would be "ring." You can put a colon before an either/or choice and follow that with a lower-case and question mark at the end. You may want to ask AuntShecky, but I'm pretty sure the latter version would actually be, technically, grammatically correct (I could be wrong as it's been a while since I've studied grammar) because in your example you're making two separate questions: "What is one supposed to do?" and "Ring a bell or dance around?" when, given the context, the two options "Ring a bell or dance around" is connected to the question "What is one supposed to do?".

Thank you Morpheus in other word if it was a stream of questions then they would look like separate entities and not together as a stream of thoughts which I wanted to convey.