1001 Rules for writing Poetry (Humorous or otherwise)

[cascadiabound]

A lot of good points although I disagree about rhyming poems, I and several others here (Tzara, Champagne, Guilty Pleasure to name but a few) write them often. I find them easier than Free form which I didn't write at all when I first arrived here. It was what I was taught at school and knew no other way to write poetry. I do agree about some of the tortured efforts that abound and was labelled 'Yoda speak' on here many years ago.
I used to do Teach Ins where poets were challenged to write out of their comfort zone, broaden their horizons which I don't think is a bad thing, after all if I'd only been willing to stick with rhyming everything I'd never have got round to non rhyming. A wonderful poetess called WickedEve that used to rule us with a rod of iron, gave me a kick up the backside and literally made me try, she believed in me. Thanks Eve

You seem to do well with rhyming poems.
they are not for everyone and at least for me, they are very daunting.
If I had to rhyme, I would never write.

 

[Senna Jawa]

I think alliteration can be overdone and more often than not is.

I don't know about the statistics, but yes, alliteration may make a poem or it can kill a poem (perhaps there was not much of a poem anyway).

My own opinion is alliteration should add more than a pleasant sound.

Indeed, too often alliteration sounds obnoxious, especially when it is done in your face (an author wants to show off).

If the words seem incidental to the narrative, the seem trite to me.

Mainly, perhaps, alliteration harmonizes and even contributes to the mood of a (good) poem. It is a great tool for this.

Mandelstam said that words serve as bridges between different parts of a poem which address different issues. Alliterations can be a construction element of such bridges. Alliteration helps to integrate poems.

Alliteration also serves as (distributed) accents, they turn the reader's attention to certain phrases.

While most everything in poetry can be either good or bad, poetry would be much poorer without alliterations.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Don't use a word for an absraction when an image can convey the abstraction.

This was very consciously practiced by Chinese already 24 centuries ago. (I don't think they ever used the word abstract in any of their writings, be it poetry or prose. ). This avoiding abstraction was practiced by folk poetry around the world. Both, the Chinese and folks, used juxtaposition.

Finally, Ezra Pound and co. were promoting the anti-abstract view, thus they have achieved at least the kindergarten level of the Art of poetry. Since then, the early XX century, American poetry was based on it until the third millennium sent poetry around the globe down the drain.

Ezra Pound said:

Go in fear of abstraction.​

Don't use abstraction, period! To be more precise, don't use generalities. Be specific. The parabolic curve is an abstraction but it is a unique object. Thus, if you truly know about parabola then go for it, write a parabolic poem. But perhaps not about mathematical curves.

 

[Senna Jawa]

4. Kill your darlings, ya know, the unnecessary adverbs/adjectives.

This statistical truth about adverbs and adjectives was stated over years by about all American poetry instructors since Ezra Pound, and these poetry instructors were right... statistically.

Actually, years ago, I have explained what this is about. Now you will know too.

There are two kinds of adverbs/adjectives: opinions and info. Avoid opinions, while info has a good chance to be fine.

In general, avoid opinions. Poetry is honest while the author's opinions always lie. In particular, this is why political "poems" are not poems, are not poetry, they are junk.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Similes work well when "like, as, or as if" add to the sound of a line.

This is true about any part/phrase/line... of a poem

Otherwise,

No need for this "Otherwise", let's skip it.

try for a metaphor.

"Protective of her children, she can be as an angry as a Momma bear."

"She's a Momma bear around her cubs."

An excellent example! (However, this still goes against Haiku).

The notion of metaphor in poetry is subtle. I have obtained an understanding which I have shared in the past, and let me share again.

Haiku is adamantly against metaphors, and they are right... partially. After all, the best haiku, in particular, each of the two most famous haiku by Basho is nothing but
a metaphor!

The secret is: there are two types of metaphors: local and global. Global metaphors can be great (e.g. when you don't see any metaphor inside the text at all because the whole poem is a metaphor). The local metaphors tend to be junk. They can be good too but to haiku, they are in bad taste.

(There is room for a discussion while this thread is not meant to have a 1001 long discussions).

 

[Senna Jawa]

1. Writer- as opposed to reader- focused writing (eg, poem as diary-entry)

If an author wrote a poem for themselves that's the end of the story. Philosophically speaking, a poem written for the author only doesn't exist (it shouldn't even be called poem).

• Overuse of abstract language
• Excessive generalizations
• Clichés and lack of novelty

These three are strongly correlated.

• There simply should be NO abstract author's language. Of course, there may be the so-called assumed language, when a character or the narrator speaks in a funny abstract way (without having any relation to the author themselves), etc.
  -
• There should be simply no generalizations. Period. (Again, remember about assumed voice).
  -
• Cliches and the phrases which sound like cliches are equally bad. You may (intellectually ) enjoy this discovery, similarity and the difference:
  
  A phrase possibly showed up in poetry for the first time -- is it original?
  
  NOT necessarily. If it is general then it sounds like cliches, and then it is junk. The phrase may sound like a cliche because of you yourself encountered that idea which is banal anyway. It's easy to imagine then zillions of people had a similar thought. Thus while technically the phrase is hm-new in literature, it is a mind-cliche.

[*] Strained or nonsensical rhymes

Artist Ludmiła Murawska is a painter but also was a wonderful actor.

Teatr Osobny
​

With poet Miron Białoszewski and her non-acting uncle, they had a famous private theater. She'd dress in a tight black tricot, and would have a strong make-up. She'd also would sound in a special way, very nicely but not like in everyday life. She told me that she needed all this so that she would act without feeling embarrassed, awkward. Otherwise, she'd be too shy.

Rhymes and meter are like these Ludmiła's stage attributes. They allow performing without being self-conscious. It goes without saying that one still has to be profound -- attributes without profoundness are pathetic.

Many people talk about sacrifices made for the sake of rhymes or meter. These two requirements lower the level of expressions and restrict imagination. That's sad and bad.

The opposite should (must!) be true. The wonderful example of Bolesław Leśmian shows that the strict discipline in one dimension (rhymes + meter) is a challenge which forces the author to be extra imaginative and original. Indeed, otherwise, you cannot fulfill the restrictive rules but to be imaginative -- granted that you never allow any compromises, and for this one needs TALENT.

***

Let's remember that in addition to regular rhyming/meter schemes there are also poems with irregular rhymes (internal, external, combinations, etc.), ...

***

E.g. most of Frost's rhymes are low-level. They tend to be grammatical too often. This tends to be bad for a general reason. A poem has to keep readers on their toes. But grammatical rhymes are too predictable.

Thus, it is not so much about the grammatical type (they can be surprising on occasions -- good!) but about predictability.

[*] Use of self-consciously poetic or antiquated language

Yes, as you've written, most of the time it is artificial and phony.

Occasionally an entire poem is for some reasons written in an archaic style. Or there are some dialogues situated in the past, etc. Thus, there are exceptions.

Final note: for anyone interested in seeking out really bad poetry, [...]

Please, NO!!!

Best regards,

 

[cascadiabound]

Please, NO!!!

 

[Senna Jawa]

The very first and main of the 1001 rules should be:

Avoid reading and writing poor poems.
​

On the other hand, I wrote in 1990/1991 on rec.arts.poems: writing bad poems is a must. We can't avoid it. But it should be only a necessary evil, nobody should indulge in writing (or reading) poor poetry.

If I write a weak poem and someone will point the shortcomings to me, it would be nice on their part, and the author may gain a bit. However, the gains from analyzing low-level texts are very limited and doing it is counterproductive. We need to immerse in the best. Only then we get good reflexes, good taste, develop imagination, learn the tools of the trade, etc. When dealing with low-level texts, the opposite happens. We lose good taste, we lose good judgment, we learn to accept weaknesses in our poems (they feel natural), etc. Low-class texts brainwash us.

Some poetic portals even have contests for bad poems -- that's horrible.

Etc. Etc. Etc.