the importance of punctuation or not

[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 where he discusses this issue while also offering some very good readings of many great poems. I would also recommend Reading Poetry: An Introduction 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, 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.