A Few Things You Always Wanted to Know about Poetry and forgot to ask

[Chester]

I've seen mathematical equations that take my head off.

And I would submit that there is great poetry in such equations. Now, this might be highly romanticized, but the truth is there are moments that make one stop in one’s tracks. These are the "poetic" moments of life. If one is particularly aware, I truly think one can find poetry in everything. But of course a definition so broad is no definition at all. So I would say instead that one’s relating of such moments with the written word is what, in its essence, poetry is and what Dickinson meant. Sure, this can encompass prose as well, but why split hairs. One man’s prose is another man’s poetry, just as one man’s poetic moment is another’s indifferent one. It might be highly personal and very subjective. But I think Emily’s definition works.

[Virgil]

And I would submit that there is great poetry in such equations. Now, this might be highly romanticized, but the truth is there are moments that make one stop in one’s tracks. These are the "poetic" moments of life. If one is particularly aware, I truly think one can find poetry in everything. But of course a definition so broad is no definition at all. So I would say instead that one’s relating of such moments with the written word is what, in its essence, poetry is and what Dickinson meant. Sure, this can encompass prose as well, but why split hairs. One man’s prose is another man’s poetry, just as one man’s poetic moment is another’s indifferent one. It might be highly personal and very subjective. But I think Emily’s definition works.

As you wish. But I still think the focus of a definition needs to rely on the craft, not the response.

[AuntShecky]

To borrow phraseology from a currently irritating commercial catch-phrase, "I'm lovin' it!" -- this discussion, I mean.

Thanks so much to Isagel for moving her nice reply so that the two sections on rhyme are reunited.

Thanks Amanda Isabel, Virgil, Antiquarian, and Chester for your thoughtful responses.

Virgil, I think you and I are of one mind regarding the purpose of poetry. The language itself is foremost. I also have to add that for the most part I agree with T. S. Eliot's view of the individual artist. Here's the link to his famous essay on the topic:
Tradition and Individual Talent

As to the vaunted "epiphany" and Maslow-type "peak experience," those phenomena are highly-subjective, depending on the response of the reader, rather than the artist. On the other hand, Wordsworth's definition of "emotions recollected in tranquillity" certainly may be valid on the individual poet's part; yet I still maintain
that the poem itself is a separate entity and that "emotion"if anything, is an effect, not a cause.

Also, Chester, I used to think that "free verse" by definition eschewed meter, of which iambic pentameter is one kind.
But having studied the topic ad infinitum-- if not nauseum, I now tend to think that iambic pentameter very closely approximates human speech (in English.) Therefore I don't doubt that 90% of English poetry is in that form if not a variation of that form, with the possible exception of really abstract experimental pieces.

Also, if you have time, please take up Miller Williams's challenge and go scan a few e e cummings poems as well as a few lines of "Prufrock."

To all of you, thanks again for your comments. Keep 'em coming!

Auntie

[Chester]

Also, Chester, I used to think that "free verse" by definition eschewed meter, of which iambic pentameter is one kind.
But having studied the topic ad infinitum-- if not nauseum, I now tend to think that iambic pentameter very closely approximates human speech (in English.) Therefore I don't doubt that 90% of English poetry is in that form if not a variation of that form, with the possible exception of really abstract experimental pieces.

Also, if you have time, please take up Miller Williams's challenge and go scan a few e e cummings poems as well as a few lines of "Prufrock."

Well I never cared much for cummings or Eliot, so I'll just take you at your word on their body of work. My overall point was that most of the poetry I am finding being published today, such as the examples I posted, doesn't seem to fit iambic pentameter. But I suppose strictly speaking, everything is some variation thereof. Words are constructed from syllables after all and I suppose one can find some sense of rhythm if one looks hard enough.

[Chester]

Oh, I just couldn't disagree more. There are some simply wonderful poets out there. I'm amazed at what I've been seeing. Please follow the links I left in my earlier post. "Sorrows" for example is hauntingly beautiful. I know this stuff is very subjective, and if what's out there now is not your cup of tea, it's not your cup of tea. But as for me, I can't get enough of it.

[TheFifthElement]

I've never like those poets, either, Chester, and I do agree that what's being published today isn't, for the most part, iambic pentameter, but I don't think what's being published today is really very good. Do you?

I'd have to strongly disagree with you here Antiquarian, there's a lot of very excellent poetry being published these days. Perhaps this isn't so true in the American market (Gluck & Olds aside) but in UK there is a very strong contemporary poetry market - check out pretty much anything published by either Bloodaxe http://www.bloodaxebooks.com/ or the Carcenet press http://www.carcanet.co.uk/ both of which are widely recognised as excellent poetry publishers.

Aside from those already mentioned (Gluck & Olds - not to labour the point ) I'd personally name the following as excellent modern poets: John Kinsella, Carol Ann Duffy, Moniza Alvi, Simon Armitage, Sean O'Brien, Elizabeth Garrett, Kapka Kassabova, Imtiaz Dharker, Galway Kinnell, U A Fanthorpe, Jenny Joseph, Fleur Adcock, Michael Ondaatje, Connie Bensley, Adrian Mitchell, Jo Shapcott...and they're just the ones I can think of! What you enjoy, of course, will be down to personal choice but here are a couple (apologies copywrite laws!) I particularly like:

Ecstasy

As we made love for the third day,
cloudy and dark, as we did not stop
but went into it and into it and
did not hesitate and did not hold back we
rose through the air, until we were up above
the timber line. The lake lay
icy and silver, the surface shirred,
reflecting nothing. The black rocks
lifted around it into the grainy
sepia air, the patches of snow
brilliant white, and even though we
did not know where we were, we could not
speak the language, we could hardly see, we
did not stop, rising with the black
rocks to the black hills, the black
mountains rising from the hills. Resting
on the crest of the mountains, one huge
cloud with scalloped edges of blazing
evening light, we did not turn back,
we stayed with it, even though we were
far beyond what we knew, we rose
into the grain of the cloud, even though we were
frightened, the air hollow, even though
nothing grew there, even though it is a
place from which no one has ever come back.

Sharon Olds

Living Space

There are just not enough
straight lines. That
is the problem.
Nothing is flat
or parallel. Beams
balance crookedly on supports
thrust off the vertical.
Nails clutch at open seams.
The whole structure leans dangerously
towards the miraculous.

Into this rough frame,
someone has squeezed
a living space

and even dared to place
these eggs in a wire basket,
fragile curves of white
hung out over the dark edge
of a slanted universe,
gathering the light
into themselves,
as if they were
the bright, thin walls of faith.

Imtiaz Dharker

Just to throw another opinion into the debate, this is from the Bloodaxe anthology Staying Alive:

"The essence of all poetry has always been rhythm" (Neil Astley)

[TheFifthElement]

hehehe, I'm not sure I'd have referred to it as romantic, but I guess I see where you're coming from! Anyway, there are a lot of great poets out there, even in these days of literature overload. From Staying Alive Neil Astley makes the following comments on this very point:

The best contemporary poetry is life-affirming and directly relevant to all our lives. Yet most of us could only name one or two modern poems which have moved us profoundly and unforgettably. These are the kinds of poems which speak to us with the same unnerving power now as when we first came across them, like W. H. Auden's 'Funeral Blues' in Four Weddings and a Funeral ('Stop all the clocks...')...Such poems are remarkable because there seem to be so few of them. Or so we believe. For most people think contemporary poetry is either boring and irrelevant or pretentious and superficial. And that these single, powerful poems are somehow the exceptions. But they aren't. One of the problems with modern poetry is that because there is so much of it - and so many poems hold little interest for the general reader - you don't know where to find those exceptional poems...

so, it seems poetry suffers from the same problem as most modern literature, the market is flooded and it is hard to find the exceptional from in amongst the ordinary.

Anyway, I'm on a roll now (sorry) one from Fleur Adcock, it'll be my last (honest!):

For a Five Year Old

A snail is climbing up the window-sill
into your room, after a night of rain.
You call me in to see, and I explain
that it would be unkind to leave it there:
it might crawl to the floor, we must take care
that no one squashes it. You understand,
and carry it outside, with careful hand,
to eat a daffodil.

I see, then, that a kind of faith prevails:
your gentleness is moulded still by words
from me, who have trapped mice and shot wild birds,
from me, who drowned your kittens, who betrayed
your closest relatives, and who purveyed
the harshest kind of truth to many another.
But, that is how things are: I am your mother,
and we are kind to snails.

it was only on the third or fourth read that I noticed the rhyme, too caught up, perhaps because as a parent this poem speaks to me, in the spirit of it.

If you're interested in poetry then there are poets out there, and poems, which will affect you as much as Frost's After Apple Picking. But like with all published works in these days it takes perseverence to find them.

[Chester]

Wonderful choices, TheFifthElement.

Excellent stuff.

[PrinceMyshkin]

to authenticate the existence of a wall:

1) Walk right into it. Your forehead, chest or knees may be bruised but you will have experienced the 'wallness' of it.

2) Stand back and wait for the sun to cast a shadow of it; then, measure the shadow.

[Virgil]

Virgil, I think you and I are of one mind regarding the purpose of poetry. The language itself is foremost. I also have to add that for the most part I agree with T. S. Eliot's view of the individual artist. Here's the link to his famous essay on the topic:
Tradition and Individual Talent

That is a famous essay and worth re-reading. Yes I agree with you that the language is the basis of poetry. Everyone has the same emotions, it's how you write them. And as to ideas, if ideas were the foundation of poetry, then why does a writer write an essay about the ideas. It's not the emotion, it's not the ideas, it's the craft of poetry. And it's not just the act of expression either. An infant wailing is expressing very powerful emotions. But's not poetry.

[AuntShecky]

It's not the emotion, it's not the ideas, it's the craft of poetry. And it's not just the act of expression either. An infant wailing is expressing very powerful emotions. But's not poetry.

Perhaps we could say that the writer works the ideas into the piece through his craft.
Emotions can be and often are part of the "experience," but as T.S. Eliot suggest, the emotions are more part of the reader's reaction to the piece. Indeed, the best poems are reader, rather than writer, directed. In other words, so-called "poems" which are thinly-disguised journal entries, all focused on "I" and "me" rarely resonate with the reader.

I always say that the problem with "self-expression" is that
all too often there is too much emphasis on the former and not enough on the latter.

[TheFifthElement]

Perhaps we could say that the writer works the ideas into the piece through his craft.
Emotions can be and often are part of the "experience," but as T.S. Eliot suggest, the emotions are more part of the reader's reaction to the piece. Indeed, the best poems are reader, rather than writer, directed. In other words, so-called "poems" which are thinly-disguised journal entries, all focused on "I" and "me" rarely resonate with the reader.

I dunno Aunt Shecky, that seems kind of a sweeping statement. There's a lot of really good poetry out there written from the perspective of 'I'. Imagine, a world without John Donne? Or Louise Gluck, Sharon Olds? I agree, there's a thin line sometimes between what is presented as poetry and a journal entry but then writing from the perspective of 'I' can still resonate with the reader and still be poetic. Like Virgil said, it's what you do with the language that counts. If your poem is just 'you dumped me, I'm angry...rant, rant, rant.' then yes, this is guilty of what you describe, but put it into the perspective of something like 'Don't hesitate to call' by Louise Gluck and it's something different entirely.

I'd have to agree with this statement though:

I always say that the problem with "self-expression" is that all too often there is too much emphasis on the former and not enough on the latter

I think, with poetry, there are a number of things at work, many of which have been mentioned: idea, emotion, language, rhythm. No one on their own is enough and the craft is in putting together the right balance of these things to present your image in a way that resonates with the reader, in a way that is more memorable and compelling than mere words alone.

[AuntShecky]

Thanks for responding to this long thread, Fifth Element.
Just for the record, I never would characterize the poetry
of John Donne, Louise Gluck, or Sharon Olds (one of my "faves") as writing journal entries.

I agree with you completely about the importance of rhythm because, as Judson Jerome often suggested, poetry is the bridge between music and the spoken word.

[TheFifthElement]

Thanks for responding to this long thread, Fifth Element.
Just for the record, I never would characterize the poetry
of John Donne, Louise Gluck, or Sharon Olds (one of my "faves") as writing journal entries.

I agree, though they do all write from the perspective of 'I'. Sometimes this results in the 'journal' style, but it doesn't have to. I think we agree on this point.

I'm so glad to find another Olds fan (yippee!)! I read Monarchs and Ecstacy and fell in love with her poetry. She writes very passionately, I love that about her work.

[AuntShecky]

ERRATA:

It's not that I'm deliberately "bumping" this old thread o' mine, but when I was looking up something, I noticed a glaring error that really needs fixing. (Too much "misinformation" already appears on the Web, and I really don't want to be guilty of posting wrong, however inadvertently.)

I wanted to "edit" reply #11 above, but evidently the thread is too old. SO-- the statement that Miller Williams is a former US poet laureate is incorrect. Either I confused him w. someone else or it was wishful thinking on my part, as maybe Mr. Williams deserves that accolade.

PLEASE-- if anyone spots any other errors I made in this thread, please correct them in a reply. Thanks.