Abrasive Hawk

What gallant form from vaunted perch does alight
Leaving tailwind that unassuming gawkers affright,
Whose tawny shadow the sun's rays does blight;
Swarthy silhouette shading glint so erudite
Whose tan-welted oars the azure seas does smite;
With swift strokes the ethereal waves does unrequite
Whose beige shield occludes satin ramparts line of sight;
O'er silted folds his opaque image does highlight
What spindling machine does wind's, billowy currents spite,
With each sweeping motion a cylinder does ignite
What grainy visage doth earth's footstool beknight,
With majestic crown his diminutive subjects delight
What predator drone spreads its cerebral kite;
Soaring fowl, creeping ermine safe sanctuary to slight
Whose steely eyes sky's tenants doth frivolously indict;
His insatiable, rapacious appetite to expedite

Alright...

How to kill a poem's spirit with ineffectual rhyme Lesson #1 - use the same end-rhyme 16 times in one poem.

H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hillwalker

How to kill a poem's spirit with ineffectual rhyme Lesson #1 - use the same end-rhyme 16 times in one poem.

H

---

Well...He said it was abrasive. LOL

End rhyme is sublime! End rhyme that is sing-songy or flows like a nursery rhyme is shallow, indeed. This rhyme scheme has a diverse vocabulary cadre. End rhyme is, indeed, a simple form, but the quality of accents and words can make it quiet effective and enjoyable. This was not a simple write, my friend. I dare say most could not have submitted a similar poem. Do not mix the simplicity of the form with a lack of syntactical prowess or deep expressive thoughts or ideals. This was a deeply reflective poem!

Unusual for the OP to critique his own piece - it's great that you enjoyed it.

As for the amount of effort it took you to write - you're obviously winding us up.

quiet (?) effective and enjoyable - not from where I'm sitting

quality of accents and words - again, look no further than 'the sun's rays does blight' - grammatically wrong and forced syntax

If you continue to maintain that your readers have failed to see the obvious skill it took to write this piece you are displaying a degree of delusion.

H

I think you've walked one path so much you've trapped yourself in a deep trench, virtuoso. As an experiment to see if you can write a number of lines with the same end rhyme it is interesting, but it really does make the poem irritating and destroy all interest someone might have in the content.

Whose tawny shadow the suns rays does blight is grammatically correct. Shadow (singular) does blight. Rays is the direct object. End rhyme merely makes the poem flow smoother. It does not detract from the content. If the rhyme scheme stops you from thinking about the content, then you must be pretty shallow. I have read your poems, and I think you could utilize rhyme a little more.

Hilarious.

The subject of your sentence is the sun's rays - they are blighting the tawny shadow. That's how most people would read it the way it's written here.

If you meant that the tawny shadow is blighting the sun's rays then it should be something along the lines of 'whose tawny shadow does blight the sun's rays'.

As for your comment on my shallow interpretation of poetry, and my own poetry's lack of rhyme - your astute analysis of my reading and writing skills is much appreciated.

H

It is a noun phrase describing the subject in the previous line. I have added a comma in the previous line to keep it from reading like a question. It is not a question. It is a descriptive phrase describing the subject in the previous line. With the comma, it should read properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtuoso

It is a noun phrase describing the subject in the previous line. I have added a comma in the previous line to keep it from reading like a question. It is not a question. It is a descriptive phrase describing the subject in the previous line. With the comma, it should read properly.

---

That makes it clear as mud.

The possibility of it being misread as a question was never an issue.
Who's and Whose are two totally different words as I'm sure you already know.

H

I’m wary about getting dragged into this discussion but I write from a position of wanting to help you wean yourself off the addiction of archaic poetry; to help take away the crutches so you can stand on your own two feet. I’m sure there’s some real poetry in there somewhere. How much contemporary poetry do you read?

While you’re clearly an intelligent writer, virtuoso, the archaic diction and inverted syntax have no place in modern poetry because they have no place in modern language.* It feels like your poetry is written more for the pleasure and benefit of yourself rather than anyone else. They’re decent pastiches, but you can’t expect anyone to take your poetry seriously today. If you don’t believe me, send them off to a quality poetry magazine and see what reaction you get.

(* I’ll admit they have a very limited place in contemporary poetry, usually for comic effect.)

Your poems betray a prescriptive belief that ‘proper’ poetry can only be written in this style; it’s a form of artistic cowardice to hide behind the language of a different era. This isn’t an authentic voice. And ok, all poets adopt different personas (personae if you prefer) but only in order to engage with the reader in some way, to move them emotionally, or make them empathise, or look at something in a new way that’s relevant to them. Frankly, this is showy, conceited and irrelevant… worse, in fact, but I don’t want to be too uncharitable as you’ve only started posting recently.

And it’s just disappointing, really. I feel like saying something like ‘you’re old enough to know better’. Using the same end-rhyme becomes distracting to the point of ridiculousness. (Look at me! Aren’t I clever?! screams every thuddingly predictable line.) There’s no heart or soul or real intelligence, just a superficial cleverness that feels it should be applauded merely for being able to tie its own shoelaces.

But anyway, as I said, I do have your best intentions at heart, and I believe that you have more to offer the modern world if you harness your powers of language in a way that is more true to yourself. And as we know, truth is beauty.

And in addition to my previous post, the following advice is taken from a contemporary British publisher to beginner-level poets and is worth reading (full page ref. here):

If you don't read contemporary poetry, then it is also unlikely that your work is going to be of interest to this editor—it shows, believe me. If you think verse is what is on the inside of Hallmark cards, then you're definitely approaching the wrong outlet. If the last poem you read was by Wordsworth in an EngLit class at the age of 14, it is quite possible that you are still trying to recreate Wordsworth in your own work. Don't do it, please: he was wonderful, and positively radical in his day, but he did not try to copy Spenser, from the 1500s. He was in tune with his time, and actually somewhat ahead of his time.

Please remember that sincerity of expression does not necessarily make for good poetry. It's how you say it, not necessarily what you say, that gets the poem across, although it obviously helps if you have something interesting to say as well.

Think about why you are writing in the first place. If it is for purely personal therapeutic reasons, this is unlikely to constitute meaningful communication with the other inhabitants of the planet, and is equally unlikely to be of interest to this editor. Emotions need to be distilled and filtered through the power of language in order to gain impact in artistic terms. All art forms should be about communication, even if many readers are not going to understand the end-product. It succeeds if even one reader gets something out of it. Likewise, if your reason for writing is simply to be published (&/or to see your name on a page, as a kind of validation of your sense of self-worth), I would suggest that the motivation behind it is ill-placed.

Blank verse, I have, indeed, read the truncated verses of many so-called, scholarly poets. Most of their poems are vague and vapid. I will grant to you that this style predominates in contemporary literary circles today. I have read all of the poet laureates of our day, and get practically nothing out of their poetry. If you like their choppy, tortured verses, then more power to you. I think rhyme is sublime, and never goes out of style. Your scholarly, educated readers might prefer that meaningless drivel, but the common reader does not. I post on many poetry sites, and the readers seem to like my rhyming poetry.

Ok - I give in. Rhyme is sublime. I wish you all the best on those other sites where your skills are better appreciated.

I'll not waste my time reading or commenting on any more of your poetry. You have your tastes and I have mine - and I'm pleased to say they're a world apart.

H

Thanks for understanding that there are different tastes in poetry. Why would you bother to read in the first place, if you did not like the style of poetry? I am pleased that I read all types of poetry. I am not so glad that you are pleased with your narrow-minded view of poetry. I will read your poems, and will evaluate them fairly. I love poetry period!

That’s a disappointingly prejudicial and close-minded response, virtuoso. This isn’t an argument about rhyme per se. It’s about how rhyme is used, along with all other aspects (including language and diction) to create poetry. I, and others, don’t object to your poems because they rhyme, we object to them because of the way in which you’ve used rhyme (and archaic language). In the case of this poem, it reads like a poetry exercise – see how many of the words in your rhyming dictionary you can cram into the poem. So the form dictates the poetry; you don’t care too much what you say, as long as you get the rhyming end-word in there. It’s artistically bankrupt.

Rhyme has moved on over the years; through your poetry, you show no awareness of that. And there’s also a hidden snobbery to your use of archaic language, as if contemporary language isn’t ‘poetical’ enough. Anyone who’s read contemporary poetry can see through your writing immediately and will dismiss it as irrelevant. If you want to improve, you need to change.

And if you think there are no contemporary poets using rhyme, you’re just betraying your ignorance of contemporary poetry. Try Richard Wilbur (US Poet Laureate 1987-88), Anthony Hecht (US Poet Laureate 1982-84), Don Paterson, Glyn Maxwell, Tony Harrison, Kay Ryan (US Poet Laureate 2008-10), Sean O’Brien, Seamus Heaney, Paul Muldoon… and there were plenty of other 20th century poets as well – Marianne Moore, Elizabeth Bishop, Robert Frost, Larkin, Auden, James Merrill, Michael Donaghy, Peter Porter… - if you’d care to find them.

Many of these poets are among my favourites, partly because they rise to the challenge of using traditional forms in ways that are relevant to contemporary society, and by using modern language and diction. Some have even been innovative and tried to push things forward. It was noticeable that you didn’t give any poets’ names in your response but relied on lazy, generalised, snobbish comments instead. Try telling current Oxford University Professor of Poetry Geoffrey Hill he’s ‘vapid’. Oh, and he uses rhyme as well.

I will agree with you that current British Poet Laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, isn’t particularly good. But hang on, she uses rhyme. So by your argument, automatically she must be a good poet, even though, by implication, you dismiss her ‘choppy, tortured verses’. Likewise, William McGonagall did use rhyme – so he must be brilliant – even though he’s often considered the worst poet ever!? I’m confused! Either that, or your argument is illogical and utterly without foundation.

And are you seriously trying to argue that the opinions of a few internet posters are more valid than the editor of a reputable (inter)national poetry magazine? If so, you’re only deluding yourself (and contributors to this site haven’t liked your work anyway). And then you imply your poetry is written for the ‘common man’. I find this a bizarre and laughable argument, lacking all self-awareness. When was the last time you head a ‘common man’ say anything approaching:

Whose steely eyes sky's tenants doth frivolously indict;
His insatiable, rapacious appetite to expedite

(The answer is 1763. I know, because I was there. I have a Tardis.) No-one today speaks like you write poetry, least of all the ‘common man’. Even you! Try reading Wordsworth’s famous Advertisement to Lyrical Ballads for your answer to that one (written more than 200 years ago).

It’s great you’ve got an interest in poetry and are keen to write. But it’s not great that you’re stuck in the past and are unwilling to challenge your own prejudices by pretending the 20th century never happened. So ultimately it’s up to you – you can continue to play it safe and write for a different age; or you can try to challenge yourself, read and appreciate more contemporary poets, and read more about how to use form for effect, and try to develop as a writer and bring yourself up to date. If you choose the former, your poetry will remain irrelevant and delusional. The choice is yours.

I agree that end rhyme is not in vogue. I only wish that the poets on this site could overlook the old fashioned style and critique the content. Thanks for your poignant comments! I do write some poems that do not utilize end rhyme.

Yours fooly belongs to the pro-rhyme camp, but I consider end rhyme as a tool in he writer's tool-box, not an end in itself. There are some poetic forms, such as the sonnet, the limerick, the rondel, etc. which actually prescribe rhyme.

The issue here is not the so-called "rhyme scheme." (I've been known to experiment with off-beat end rhymes, even an "a-a-a-a-a" rhyme scheme.) The problem is that there seems to be a violation of the Cardinal Rule concerning rhyme.

Except for very unusual cases, end rhyme can only appear in metered verse. That means that each line must match its counterpart in both length and roughly the same number of syllables, but more important is the pattern of stresses. The end rhyme must be a stressed syllable. In iambic pentameter, for instance, the each line has five feet-each with an unstressed + stressed syllable, such as in this line by Robert Graves:

Quote:

---

O Love, be fed with apples while you may,

---

In your opening lines--

Quote:

---

What gallant form from vaunted perch does alight
Leaving tailwind that unassuming gawkers affright

---

you have eleven syllables in the first line and thirteen in the second. The iambs pretty much line up in the first line, with an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed. Your second line begins with a trochee (reversed iamb) which is okay, but you have too many unstressed syllables in the rest of the line: WIND that un a SUMming GAWkers afFRIGHT.

The stresses are out of place in other lines, such as this one:

Quote:

---

O'er silted folds his opaque image does highlight

---

The stresses don't fall correctly, for this is how we pronounce these words in conversational English: oPAQUE HIGHlight.

When you alter natural word order or the normal pronunication of certain words in order to fit the meter or rhyme scheme, the result is called "wrenching," or "hyperaton." It sounds like Yoda speech, as awkward as all get-out. This is what makes readers hold their noses at rhyme.

Look at your poem and count how many times you use the word "does" to fill out the line. Once, maybe twice it's okay; more than that it's tedious. Also, anaphora (beginning a few consecutive lines with the same word)is a nifty device, but again, use the same word too often and it's like garlic. Far too many of your lines begin with "Who" "Whose" and "With."

I wholeheartedly agree with Blank_Verse re: contemporary diction. Why deliberately make your verse archaic and stilted? Bottom line: rhyme if you must, but when you do, do it effectively.

Strive for freshness in your writing.

I agree that the rhyme scheme does not follow a metric pattern. I was not attempting to construct a poem with perfect rhythm. My focus on this poem is clearly the subject matter. I use a lot of descriptive words to describe the nature and purview of the menacing, but magestic, hawk. I appreciate your deep critique. I have written numerous, other poems that have a prescribed, metric scheme. I look forward to reading more of your poignant reviews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtuoso

I agree that the rhyme scheme does not follow a metric pattern. I was not attempting to construct a poem with perfect rhythm.

---

Nobody's perfect, least of all yours fooly. (The aforemntioned Robert Graves once said that it was impossible to write a perfect poem. If anyone ever did so, the world would end.)

My point is that, unless you have a metrical structure with the rhymes occurring on the stressed end syllables, steer clear of rhyme.

Aunt Shecky have you ever heard of inexact rhyme, also called near rhyme. Yeats used it in some of his poems. Don't get stressed out on the end stresses! You want exact rhyme. Many of my lines have exact end rhymes, some have inexact rhymes. Read some Yeats for me, and come back to my rhyming poems! Here is a Yeats stanza for you:


Heart-smitten with emotion I sink down
My heart recovering with covered eyes
Wherever I had looked I had looked upon
My permanent or impermanent images

If by "near" rhyme, as you call it, is similar to slant rhyme or half-rhyme at the end of lines, then the convention regarding meter still applies, as does the admonition against wrenching syllables.

The Yeats lines cited do not have end rhyme. Incidentally, yours fooly would have to write verse for forty more years in addition to the forty I've already have written it, plus win every poetry prize ever offered, including the Nobel for Literature, before even thinking about comparing myself to Yeats in any way.

The point is that non-perfect rhyme schemes exist. As for the metric rhythm of poetry, I have seen very few poems on this site that would have the smooth, metric rhythm you seem to hold up as your holy grail. Why don't you critique some of the really lousy poems on this site, Aunt Drooly. Don't drool on about my poems.