FORM vs content

[The_Fool]

I want my poetry to be almost lyrical. I want it to sound cooler than it reads off the page. Give me some alliteration, give me some assonance, give me some rhythm (Just not always iambic).

Form poetry makes you go look stuff up. Makes you find words that fit the rhythm or the rhyme. In repetitive forms, such as the Villanelle, Triolet, and Sestina, the writer is forced to look at the language and find nuances for words that differ from line to line.

I want to do more audio poetry, becuase I want to stress the way I hear the poem in my head. The problem with that is that now I am putting the reader into the position where they are confronted with my interpretation rather than their own. I always say the writer draws the outline and the reader provides the color from the palate provided by the writer. Does an audio reading limit that palate too much?

 

[PatCarrington]

i read a great deal of the poetry that is being published today, as much as i can. it seems to me that content has almost completely taken over from form (which is more than fine by me), and that more and more value is being placed on “plain speak” (which is also fine by me.)

if you read ploughshares or poetry mag or the yale or georgia review, on and on, all the places with reputations for being on the cutting edge, the amount of intensely structured form poetry you will find ranges from little to none at all. and this has being going on for a while. of course there are stray writers who practice all forms of poetry and experimentation, but by sheer weight content seems to have taken over.

so it looks like form poetry has as much to do with contemporary writing as the buggy whip does with contemporary transportation.

free verse, and without safety nets as bogusbrig said, IS the poetry of 2005 and has been for a long while.

so in any form vs. content discussion that contains debate about their relevance, about what is the NEW POETRY, the question should not be which IS more important in today’s writing world. that question has been answered. the question to be debated, rather, is SHOULD form regain a bigger place in modern poetry, and occupy importance from more than just a historical perspective.

 

[flyguy69]

i read a great deal of the poetry that is being published today, as much as i can. it seems to me that content has almost completely taken over from form (which is more than fine by me), and that more and more value is being placed on “plain speak” (which is also fine by me.)

if you read ploughshares or poetry mag or the yale or georgia review, on and on, all the places with reputations for being on the cutting edge, the amount of intensely structured form poetry you will find ranges from little to none at all. and this has being going on for a while. of course there are stray writers who practice all forms of poetry and experimentation, but by sheer weight content seems to have taken over.

so it looks like form poetry has as much to do with contemporary writing as the buggy whip does with contemporary transportation.

free verse, and without safety nets as bogusbrig said, IS the poetry of 2005 and has been for a long while.

so in any form vs. content discussion that contains debate about their relevance, about what is the NEW POETRY, the question should not be which IS more important in today’s writing world. that question has been answered. the question to be debated, rather, is SHOULD form regain a bigger place in modern poetry, and occupy importance from more than just a historical perspective.

And yet I've been slogging through the "Best American" anthology for 2004 these past couple of weeks, and wondering if the use of the word "form" simply hasn't changed. I recognize how strongly these anthologies reflect the taste of the guest editors (Lynn Hejinian, in this case), but it remains a nice cross section of published work in prominent journals.

There are few classical forms in this edition, but rhetorical minimalism has almost become a form in itself. Again and again I read poetry that has been stripped of conventional sentance structure that seems to serve little purpose other than to be stripped. Content is often (but not always!) strong, but I shake my head at efforts to distort the presentation in ways that are very much like stuffing the message into a classical form.

 

[champagne1982]

<snip>As for poetry restricted to a particular emotion or thought or whatever, isn't that the way a poet ends up writing poetry about their own navel and readerless? </snip>.)

Ode To My Navel

O' you sweet umbilicus,
you dimple in my tummy!
When I look deep into you,
I see you're cute and yummy.

O' my tasty navel,
I cannot help but stress,
that clothing only makes me think
that I should never dress.

Other folks may not agree,
but to them I must say, "Poo!
"If your belly was a cute as mine
"you'd be a navel lovin' foo'!"

Now, admittedly, that was silly. Did you read it all the way through? Oh! How about those end rhymes?

 

[bogusbrig]

Ode To My Navel

O' you sweet umbilicus,
you dimple in my tummy!
When I look deep into you,
I see you're cute and yummy.

O' my tasty navel,
I cannot help but stress,
that clothing only makes me think
that I should never dress.

Other folks may not agree,
but to them I must say, "Poo!
"If your belly was a cute as mine
"you'd be a navel lovin' foo'!"

Now, admittedly, that was silly. Did you read it all the way through? Oh! How about those end rhymes?

Some poets have particularly yucky navels.

But I admit, all these type of debates are ultimately futile because you'll set out your position and then someone will prove you wrong. The fact is, the arts aren't a hard science and there is no right or wrong, just things that work and things that don't and even then, the best we can do is get some sort of consensus.

 

[Angeline]

And yet I've been slogging through the "Best American" anthology for 2004 these past couple of weeks, and wondering if the use of the word "form" simply hasn't changed. I recognize how strongly these anthologies reflect the taste of the guest editors (Lynn Hejinian, in this case), but it remains a nice cross section of published work in prominent journals.

There are few classical forms in this edition, but rhetorical minimalism has almost become a form in itself. Again and again I read poetry that has been stripped of conventional sentance structure that seems to serve little purpose other than to be stripped. Content is often (but not always!) strong, but I shake my head at efforts to distort the presentation in ways that are very much like stuffing the message into a classical form.

Exactly. Some of us may not like writing in the forms (mornin Patrick ), but I wouldn't be so quick to cast them aside. And you're right, to some extent fad becomes form. Anyway I write what I like; I want to be published, sure, but the last thing I'm going to do is change my style, what I care about writing so some journal will take my poems. I kind of subscribe to Groucho's quote "I won't belong to any club that would have me as a member." I write what I love--I could care less what's in style.

 

[flyguy69]

Exactly. Some of us may not like writing in the forms (mornin Patrick ), but I wouldn't be so quick to cast them aside. And you're right, to some extent fad becomes form. Anyway I write what I like; I want to be published, sure, but the last thing I'm going to do is change my style, what I care about writing so some journal will take my poems. I kind of subscribe to Groucho's quote "I won't belong to any club that would have me as a member." I write what I love--I could care less what's in style.

Indeed, how many poets (or any other artists) are remembered for "doing what was popular at the time"? We'll be remembered for doing something well.

And for the vast fortune I will leave behind.

 

[flyguy69]

Ode To My Navel

O' you sweet umbilicus,
you dimple in my tummy!
When I look deep into you,
I see you're cute and yummy.

O' my tasty navel,
I cannot help but stress,
that clothing only makes me think
that I should never dress.

Other folks may not agree,
but to them I must say, "Poo!
"If your belly was a cute as mine
"you'd be a navel lovin' foo'!"

Now, admittedly, that was silly. Did you read it all the way through? Oh! How about those end rhymes?

I sense a new Champagne av coming.

 

[RhymeFairy]

I am so new to this world of poetry. I have thought of this often. I am learning so much here with you all. Yet, I feel as if I forget more than I learn. Leaking brain I reckon.
I love all the forms, and differ. writes here. A lot of the time I do not know one from the other.
What I do know is words. I see the words. Behind, in, around, dig deep, and I come up with pure, sweet, sugar, everytime. I love all your writings styles here. So many differ, yet ... so many the same. Not the wording, just the styles.

Basically it comes down to this. I love reading, and writing. It does not matter to me how it is written. Yes, I do love to finally figure out. To *see* what I missed the first time. Then I feel as if I have accomplished something.
To read all everyone has posted here be it on the threads or otherwise. I love this lil world I have found. So form, content, style, rhyme, free verse...
Whatever it may be...'tis all pure ... sweet ... heavenly ... poetry
to me~

 

[bogusbrig]

Indeed, how many poets (or any other artists) are remembered for "doing what was popular at the time"? We'll be remembered for doing something well.

And for the vast fortune I will leave behind.

I'm struggling to think of one famous writer/poet/artist who is famous after their death that wasn't famous in their own life time. By definition, most famous artists/writers were the height of fashion when they were alive. The ones that remain famous after their death are the ones time and consensus has sifted out as worthy of attention. If you have not made an impact in your chosen artform before your death, there is little chance any notice will ever be taken of you after your death.

Van Gogh is the one often named as living in poverty and then his paintings going for millions after his death. However he was well connected in the art world and he was in the intellectual vanguard of his art. If his work wasn't championed by his brother Theo who was an art dealer and then by Theo's widow, we would not have heard of van Gogh. If he did not commit suicide and lived a life of average length, he would have died rich and famous having seen his paintings being at the height of fashion.

I'm struggling to think of any other artist/writer in any field that was unknown in their life time and famous after their death.

So whether content or form, if you are ambitious, better to be fashionable and hope prosperity chooses you.

 

[PatCarrington]

Exactly. Some of us may not like writing in the forms (mornin Patrick ), but I wouldn't be so quick to cast them aside. And you're right, to some extent fad becomes form. Anyway I write what I like; I want to be published, sure, but the last thing I'm going to do is change my style, what I care about writing so some journal will take my poems. I kind of subscribe to Groucho's quote "I won't belong to any club that would have me as a member." I write what I love--I could care less what's in style.

morning, jersey/maine/nc.

of course we all should write what we love. i don't suggest otherwise. i was just stating my observations to Charley's original question about POETRY NOW.

and i definiately see what fly is talking about when i read.

there IS a lot of very good poetry being written with stripped-down sentence structure ( and much of it i like very much ), though i'm not quite sure 'minimalism' is the term for what it is. the stripped-off words are still there to be understood (if not seen) if both the poet and the reader are skilled enough, i think. to me, 'minimalism' connotes poetry that has real gaps in the thinking and logic, a different style completely. stripped-down linear poetry seems to rely on the 'understanding' of words, sort of the way the subject of an imperative sentence is 'understood,' though it's much more complex than that.

 

[PatCarrington]

I'm struggling to think of one famous writer/poet/artist who is famous after their death that wasn't famous in their own life time.

Emily Dickinson comes to mind.

there aren't many, i don't think.

 

[flyguy69]

I'm struggling to think of one famous writer/poet/artist who is famous after their death that wasn't famous in their own life time. By definition, most famous artists/writers were the height of fashion when they were alive. The ones that remain famous after their death are the ones time and consensus has sifted out as worthy of attention. If you have not made an impact in your chosen artform before your death, there is little chance any notice will ever be taken of you after your death.

Van Gogh is the one often named as living in poverty and then his paintings going for millions after his death. However he was well connected in the art world and he was in the intellectual vanguard of his art. If his work wasn't championed by his brother Theo who was an art dealer and then by Theo's widow, we would not have heard of van Gogh. If he did not commit suicide and lived a life of average length, he would have died rich and famous having seen his paintings being at the height of fashion.

I'm struggling to think of any other artist/writer in any field that was unknown in their life time and famous after their death.

So whether content or form, if you are ambitious, better to be fashionable and hope prosperity chooses you.

Franz Kafka
George Orwell (alright, he had 5 years left!)
Paul Gauguin
J.S. Bach
Henry David Thoreau

Of course, "famous" is a very subjective title!

And that really wasn't my point. My point is that the reason for fame is enduring quality, not transient fashionability.

 

[bogusbrig]

Franz Kafka
George Orwell (alright, he had 5 years left!)
Paul Gauguin
J.S. Bach
Henry David Thoreau

Of course, "famous" is a very subjective title!

And that really wasn't my point. My point is that the reason for fame is enduring quality, not transient fashionability.

Hmm Gauguin was in the circle of Degas, Bernard, Laval and van Gogh so he wasn't an outsider and was well known enough to have had a major retrospective a mere three years after his death. Orwell wasn't an outsider either and was well connected and his books have always been in print since before his death. The others had champions so I suppose one should find someone who has belief in their work.

But I understand that wasn't your point. I was just pointing out that the best chance of reaching the heady heights of posterity is through being fashionable, getting known in your own life time and then hope fate smiles sweetly on you.
I'm suspicious as to whether enduring quality exists, I think much depends on the path history takes as to whether a particular work endures.

I'm a fan of the Dead White Males but I do wonder at times how much history has smiled sweetly on them and how much is true enduring quality. I have moments of doubt.

 

[flyguy69]

!

Hmm Gauguin was in the circle of Degas, Bernard, Laval and van Gogh so he wasn't an outsider and was well known enough to have had a major retrospective a mere three years after his death. Orwell wasn't an outsider either and was well connected and his books have always been in print since before his death. The others had champions so I suppose one should find someone who has belief in their work.

But I understand that wasn't your point. I was just pointing out that the best chance of reaching the heady heights of posterity is through being fashionable, getting known in your own life time and then hope fate smiles sweetly on you.
I'm suspicious as to whether enduring quality exists, I think much depends on the path history takes as to whether a particular work endures.

I'm a fan of the Dead White Males but I do wonder at times how much history has smiled sweetly on them and how much is true enduring quality. I have moments of doubt.

"enduring quality" may be as subjective as famous!

 

[Angeline]

Indeed, how many poets (or any other artists) are remembered for "doing what was popular at the time"? We'll be remembered for doing something well.

And for the vast fortune I will leave behind.

Stay in touch. I suspect my yet to be conceived grandchildren may need help with college.

 

[ruminator]

It's kind of nice languishing in relative obscurity



thanks again for the help and advice

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I plan on leaving no fortune behind.

 

[flyguy69]

I plan on leaving no fortune behind.

I feel fortunate to have glimpsed your behind.

 

[Angeline]

morning, jersey/maine/nc.

of course we all should write what we love. i don't suggest otherwise. i was just stating my observations to Charley's original question about POETRY NOW.

and i definiately see what fly is talking about when i read.

there IS a lot of very good poetry being written with stripped-down sentence structure ( and much of it i like very much ), though i'm not quite sure 'minimalism' is the term for what it is. the stripped-off words are still there to be understood (if not seen) if both the poet and the reader are skilled enough, i think. to me, 'minimalism' connotes poetry that has real gaps in the thinking and logic, a different style completely. stripped-down linear poetry seems to rely on the 'understanding' of words, sort of the way the subject of an imperative sentence is 'understood,' though it's much more complex than that.

Some "minimalist" poetry can be very very good--I think of all the eastern forms, for example. It's hard to come up with other examples of it, but some of the stuff Bill Knott has written is deceptively simple, no? Seems that way at first read, but really it's quite complex, layered with meaning in the few words.

Here, Eve writes some poems that are very spare and very good.

I understand what you are saying about some poems being like sentences with an implied subject, but I can't think of any offhand that are like that. Any examples? I actually think I'd prefer that kind of poetry to some of the stuff written over the past ten years or so that is so metaphorical as to be meaningless without being in the writer's head to know what the hell he or she is on about.

 

[Angeline]

I plan on leaving no fortune behind.

I'm just trying to figure out how to get one in the first place.

 

[flyguy69]

I'm just trying to figure out how to get one in the first place.

Show your behind. I'd pay.

 

[flyguy69]

Some "minimalist" poetry can be very very good--I think of all the eastern forms, for example. It's hard to come up with other examples of it, but some of the stuff Bill Knott has written is deceptively simple, no? Seems that way at first read, but really it's quite complex, layered with meaning in the few words.

Here, Eve writes some poems that are very spare and very good.

I understand what you are saying about some poems being like sentences with an implied subject, but I can't think of any offhand that are like that. Any examples? I actually think I'd prefer that kind of poetry to some of the stuff written over the past ten years or so that is so metaphorical as to be meaningless without being in the writer's head to know what the hell he or she is on about.

i liked Darkmaas' comment the other day: poetry does itself a disservice when it forgets its audience.

 

[Angeline]

Show your behind. I'd pay.

How much of my behind? I figure you owe me about $14k for partially clad ass avs since you came to this forum. That should cover book fees for one class by the time my granchildren get to college.

 

[Angeline]

i liked Darkmaas' comment the other day: poetry does itself a disservice when it forgets its audience.

Well I think so, too, but you sure wouldn't know it from some of the poetry touted by big time journals over the years.