Credentials

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Ogg, I have the writing ability of a spastic orangutan hailing from the thousand monkeys typing hypothesis, so I deem you as a far superior poet...

Maybe my expectations are too high.

I expect a poet, even if their preferred medium is free verse, to be able to produce an acceptable poem in a formal structure such as a sonnet and that ability is an essential part of the tool set that a poet should have.

I know I can't produce even average poems in the variety of classical forms. I can do some - like triolets - but not all so I see myself as only a poet in training...

I don't think anyone ought to discount themselves for not writing in a formally recognized structure. Not everyone thinks formal structure is necessary, or in some cases, desirable. I think it's very, very impressive when people can pull that off, but the poetry I like best really makes me feel something. I think that formal structures get in the way of that sometimes. However wonderfully the author manages to make the finished piece, I wonder what beauty and meaning got lost because he stuffed his thoughts into a particular structure.

If a spastic orangutan of uncertain parentage can write something that makes me experience the feeling said spastic orangutan was trying to evoke, I say buy that fine primate a drink and get him a pen and some paper.

If the poetry police come for you guys for not following rules, I'll swear you went that way -> -> -> -> ->

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

No hard time, just a moment for explanation and clarity...
Welcome to the forum..

Thank you.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't think anyone ought to discount themselves for not writing in a formally recognized structure. Not everyone thinks formal structure is necessary, or in some cases, desirable. I think it's very, very impressive when people can pull that off, but the poetry I like best really makes me feel something. I think that formal structures get in the way of that sometimes. However wonderfully the author manages to make the finished piece, I wonder what beauty and meaning got lost because he stuffed his thoughts into a particular structure.

If a spastic orangutan of uncertain parentage can write something that makes me experience the feeling said spastic orangutan was trying to evoke, I say buy that fine primate a drink and get him a pen and some paper.

If the poetry police come for you guys for not following rules, I'll swear you went that way -> -> -> -> ->

I wasn't suggesting that all poets should follow rules and produce poems in a formal structure, more that they should know what the rules are and the history of poetic expression.

As a writer, I know what the rules of grammar are, and when I break them, I know exactly WHY I have deviated. As a poet, I expect myself to know how previous poets have expressed themselves, and why I am not using the formal structures they used. I appreciate that the formal structure of a classical poem can be restricting but they can also help to concentrate the mind in the choice of word, rhyme and meter.

My acid test for a poem I have written? Can I remember it, and better still, recite it aloud? Structure and meter can help.

 

[Piscator]

My acid test for a poem I have written? Can I remember it, and better still, recite it aloud? Structure and meter can help.

Too true, recital is often reveals problems with flow that a scan of the written word misses. And the repeated lines, structure and rhyme of classical forms are an aid to memory in recital or give you an out for an ad lib when you forget the next line as seen in Ellla's ad lib on Mack the Knife

 

[butters]

form is a restriction to those (like me, frequently) who are not as adept at it as others. some forms i find easier than others, some i have attempted only to screw up my words in disgust.

it's not the fault of a form, it's the ability of the individual as to how best use the form to hang your poem on. if i can read through a poem, get lost in the imagery, sensations, emotions, and then, only when i've finished it 'notice' the form? that's MY acid test of a great form poem. unfortunately, the majority i've read fall short of that and i notice all the shoe-horning and poor word-choices in order to serve the form. form must serve the poem, not the other way around, but don't blame the forms

for me, as always, the voice of the poem is the ultimate concern. if i can use a form to express it to its best, great, if not--well, it is whatever it is.

too much of what i write at the moment doesn't even qualify as real poetry, more just the odd 'poetically-framed thought of the moment'. that will change, too.

 

[butters]

ogg

while it's an ideal for a poet to be familiar with poetry-history, the classics, all the 'rules' (and i agree, the more you know the better your options are when you decide what to adhere to or ignore because reasons), i have read some of the most stirring, potent poetry from people who have had little immersion in that as a background. you don't have to have it to be a poet. it's inside you or it's not, whether you're an english professor or a car mechanic, a jockey or a barman.

options are great, but--if it's in you--poetry will out, whatever your background.

 

[oggbashan]

Butters, I accept that people can write poetry however they like.

I just think their poetry might be better if they had a wider understanding of poetry in general.

Like all arts - practice improves, but knowledge makes the improvement process easier.

I still have a very long way to go - if I live long enough.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Butters, I accept that people can write poetry however they like.

I just think their poetry might be better if they had a wider understanding of poetry in general.

Like all arts - practice improves, but knowledge makes the improvement process easier.

I still have a very long way to go - if I live long enough.

What is it about the traditional forms that feel is important for a poet who doesn't write in traditional form to know? How would it be applied?

 

[todski28]

What is it about the traditional forms that feel is important for a poet who doesn't write in traditional form to know? How would it be applied?

so from my perspective it wasn't until I started failing badly at forms that I recognised sonic structures within words i.e. assonance, consonance, rhyme, slant rhyme, near rhyme, also found a cadence for writing that suits my own personal rhythm, I'm not sure if I'd have ever made it there without the attempt at it.

formative writing makes me feel stifled, crammed in, but I am a free wheeling wordy bastard that could probably use the constraints of form to better control the sheer volume of crap I spew on the page.

one of the most interesting times I've had as a writer was experimenting with the above sounds and words, i tried to fit in onomatopoeia into some things failed but enjoyed the attempt. It really lifted my writing from doctor seuss does crack and fucks hookers to something better.

I was also very lucky to have a lot of gifted and patient teachers that were happy for me to run around scribbling shit all over the walls

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

so from my perspective it wasn't until I started failing badly at forms that I recognised sonic structures within words i.e. assonance, consonance, rhyme, slant rhyme, near rhyme, also found a cadence for writing that suits my own personal rhythm, I'm not sure if I'd have ever made it there without the attempt at it.

formative writing makes me feel stifled, crammed in, but I am a free wheeling wordy bastard that could probably use the constraints of form to better control the sheer volume of crap I spew on the page.

one of the most interesting times I've had as a writer was experimenting with the above sounds and words, i tried to fit in onomatopoeia into some things failed but enjoyed the attempt. It really lifted my writing from doctor seuss does crack and fucks hookers to something better.

I was also very lucky to have a lot of gifted and patient teachers that were happy for me to run around scribbling shit all over the walls

You musn't speak that way about the author of There's a Wocket in my Pocket!

 

[oggbashan]

What is it about the traditional forms that feel is important for a poet who doesn't write in traditional form to know? How would it be applied?

The traditional forms make you think about word sounds and structure and how they fit with others.

For example, if you are going to need to rhyme your word choice is restricted to only a few. Which of those rhyming pairs is best for what you want to say?

Meter makes you think about the sounds and cadence of a line. If you can write in meter you can know how your poem will sound when spoken or declaimed. My poem Garderobe for example is meant to be said aloud.

I see the traditional forms as a training aid to give you a basis for writing whatever and however you want - but with a sound basis on which to build castles in the air. Without at least some foundations I think your poetry can appear to lack depth and be too facile - unless you are exceptionally talented.

Edited for PS:

Some people think my 50-word stories are poetry. Perhaps they are. The only structure is that they must be exactly 50 words long. That means that every word has to be there for a reason and has to be chosen carefully. 50-word stories were originally popularised as a learning aid for those studying English as a foreign language. I know that it takes me longer and is much more challenging to write a set of 15 x 50 words (to meet Literotica's 750 word minimum) than to write two 5,000 to 8,000 word stories.

 

[todski28]

The traditional forms make you think about word sounds and structure and how they fit with others.

For example, if you are going to need to rhyme your word choice is restricted to only a few. Which of those rhyming pairs is best for what you want to say?

Meter makes you think about the sounds and cadence of a line. If you can write in meter you can know how your poem will sound when spoken or declaimed. My poem Garderobe for example is meant to be said aloud.

I see the traditional forms as a training aid to give you a basis for writing whatever and however you want - but with a sound basis on which to build castles in the air. Without at least some foundations I think your poetry can appear to lack depth and be too facile - unless you are exceptionally talented.

Edited for PS:

Some people think my 50-word stories are poetry. Perhaps they are. The only structure is that they must be exactly 50 words long. That means that every word has to be there for a reason and has to be chosen carefully. 50-word stories were originally popularised as a learning aid for those studying English as a foreign language. I know that it takes me longer and is much more challenging to write a set of 15 x 50 words (to meet Literotica's 750 word minimum) than to write two 5,000 to 8,000 word stories.

“For example, if you are going to need to rhyme your word choice is restricted to only a few. Which of those rhyming pairs is best for what you want to say?“


The other side of this is none of those rhyming words may say what you want so you might have to take the idea and conceptualise it in a different structure creating something new to use to cover the needs of the form.




”Some people think my 50-word stories are poetry. Perhaps they are. The only structure is that they must be exactly 50 words long. That means that every word has to be there for a reason and has to be chosen carefully.”

There is a hundred word flash fiction thread in the forum somewhere and I think most straddle the line of prose and poetry by forcing you to hone the details to specific imagery because you don’t have the words to fully explain the entirety of a scene, you have to be precise with the explanation of what you’re seeing, hearing, experiencing, it leaves you having to jettison weaker words

I.e just, than, the, I, and,

those words that can bog down the story can go if they’re not one hundred percent necessary for comprehension, it makes you sharpen your tools.



“I see the traditional forms as a training aid to give you a basis for writing whatever and however you want - but with a sound basis on which to build castles in the air. Without at least some foundations I think your poetry can appear to lack depth and be too facile - unless you are exceptionally talented.”

Agree with this.....

 

[todski28]

You musn't speak that way about the author of There's a Wocket in my Pocket!

And now for some reason I want to try and re-write it... and I know I shouldn’t

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

The traditional forms make you think about word sounds and structure and how they fit with others.

For example, if you are going to need to rhyme your word choice is restricted to only a few. Which of those rhyming pairs is best for what you want to say?

Meter makes you think about the sounds and cadence of a line. If you can write in meter you can know how your poem will sound when spoken or declaimed. My poem Garderobe for example is meant to be said aloud.

I see the traditional forms as a training aid to give you a basis for writing whatever and however you want - but with a sound basis on which to build castles in the air. Without at least some foundations I think your poetry can appear to lack depth and be too facile - unless you are exceptionally talented.

Edited for PS:

Some people think my 50-word stories are poetry. Perhaps they are. The only structure is that they must be exactly 50 words long. That means that every word has to be there for a reason and has to be chosen carefully. 50-word stories were originally popularised as a learning aid for those studying English as a foreign language. I know that it takes me longer and is much more challenging to write a set of 15 x 50 words (to meet Literotica's 750 word minimum) than to write two 5,000 to 8,000 word stories.

I see what you're saying. I agree that's one way you can learn those things. I don't think it's the only way. I'm not sure if it's the best way. I suppose it probably depends on the person.

I don't really think people need much help with rhyming, do they? That part's easy, at least in concept. (This is beside the point, but I wonder why I never use of internal rhyme anymore?) I see how the forms provide a structure to demonstrate or practice cadence, but I do feel that cadence can be taught without that. Some very effective cadence is non-standard.

Think of Poe's The Bells. If you try to describe it to standard forms, you can only say it's modified and mixed. He switches between trochaic and iambic meter with marked effect. It's an unusual rhyme scheme, too. I think The Bells is a great example for learning meter, even though it's non-standard. The Raven is another great example. I think it sticks pretty closely trochaic octameter, but how often do you see trochaic octameter? Yet it's so effective. You can hardly read it without speeding up where he wants you to speed up for that nerve-jangling effect. It's a perfect teaching poem because you can feel the cadence so irresistibly.

I think it's great to use traditional forms as learning tools, but I don't think it's good to say a person must learn them to be a poet. There would be many beautiful poems we wouldn't have if that were true. One of my favorite poets is Emily Dickinson, and if she learned traditional forms, it's not reflected in her own work, as far as I can see.

I also think that any type of rule can be limiting. You referred to the use of traditional forms as rules, and I think that's one accurate way of looking at them. I think of painters when I think of rules and whether they form a necessary foundation. They can, obviously, but it depends a lot on what you want to do. There were wonderful painters whose art probably benefited tremendously from not having the rules and not having art educations. Van Gogh, Rousseau, Khalo, and Grandma Moses come to mind. We need the Van Goghs in poetry as well as in painting.

 

[oggbashan]

Van Gogh?

Yes, but. He could and did produce work in traditional formats before moving on. For a while he was actually an Art teacher.

http://agreateuropetripplanner.blogspot.com/2015/04/early-works-at-other-van-gogh-museum.html

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Van Gogh?

Yes, but. He could and did produce work in traditional formats before moving on. For a while he was actually an Art teacher.

http://agreateuropetripplanner.blogspot.com/2015/04/early-works-at-other-van-gogh-museum.html

Of course he did. It was well executed and even had hints of experimentation with color, but it wasn't amazing like his non-traditional work. More to the point, he was primarily self-taught with respect to his traditional work. His first real art teacher was also self-taught, but he was painting before she came along. She was the governess he got when he had to drop out of school. He was already doing his traditional work when he tried art academy and quickly dropped out of it. (He was flunking and found it very limiting - too many rules.)

I didn't know he was an art teacher. I knew he taught somewhere, but I thought it was just was a general curriculum. It seemed to be one of his more stable periods. I'd be interested in reading about it, but the link seems to be broken. I tried Googling to no success. Do you happen to remember the name of the school or something that would help me pin it down?

 

[oggbashan]

He taught for a year in Ramsgate, Kent.

https://www.theoldie.co.uk/blog/van-goghs-happiest-days-in-ramsgate-tate-britain

But I was wrong - not teaching art. He had been an art dealer in London before Ramsgate.

 

[SimonDoom]

Butters, I accept that people can write poetry however they like.

I just think their poetry might be better if they had a wider understanding of poetry in general.

Like all arts - practice improves, but knowledge makes the improvement process easier.

I still have a very long way to go - if I live long enough.

I agree with you.

To underscore the point further I would point to other art forms -- drawing, or music.

There's no obligation to draw in a lifelike style, and there are plenty of great drawers who don't draw this way. Picasso was famous for drawing people in a non-lifelike way. But he knew HOW to draw people in a lifelike way, and he'd obviously practiced at it, so he knew the human body and how to represent it. That knowledge informed his later work, even though that later work did not depict the body in a lifelike way.

Same with music. Knowledge of musical theory and scales helps one compose, even if the music one ultimately composes violates the norms of western music.

A solid understanding of poetic forms, and of meter, and rhythm, and different types of rhyme, can only enrich and help one's ability to write poetry, even if one's own poems don't hew to classical poetic conventions.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

And now for some reason I want to try and re-write it... and I know I shouldn’t

Rewrite the Wocket in the Pocket? You blaspheme! You wild man! Surely, you'll never do better than the Zellar in the Cellar, although I do think the Noothbrush on the Toothbrush could use a revamp.

However, if you are heretical enough to do a rewrite, please post it!

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

He taught for a year in Ramsgate, Kent.

https://www.theoldie.co.uk/blog/van-goghs-happiest-days-in-ramsgate-tate-britain

But I was wrong - not teaching art. He had been an art dealer in London before Ransagte.

Thanks. It was nice to read about him during his happier times in a seaside town. It's been ages since I'd nosed around his closet, and I only remembered the rough outlines.

 

[butters]

I see what you're saying. I agree that's one way you can learn those things. I don't think it's the only way. I'm not sure if it's the best way. I suppose it probably depends on the person.

I don't really think people need much help with rhyming, do they? That part's easy, at least in concept. (This is beside the point, but I wonder why I never use of internal rhyme anymore?) I see how the forms provide a structure to demonstrate or practice cadence, but I do feel that cadence can be taught without that. Some very effective cadence is non-standard.

Think of Poe's The Bells. If you try to describe it to standard forms, you can only say it's modified and mixed. He switches between trochaic and iambic meter with marked effect. It's an unusual rhyme scheme, too. I think The Bells is a great example for learning meter, even though it's non-standard. The Raven is another great example. I think it sticks pretty closely trochaic octameter, but how often do you see trochaic octameter? Yet it's so effective. You can hardly read it without speeding up where he wants you to speed up for that nerve-jangling effect. It's a perfect teaching poem because you can feel the cadence so irresistibly.

I think it's great to use traditional forms as learning tools, but I don't think it's good to say a person must learn them to be a poet. There would be many beautiful poems we wouldn't have if that were true. One of my favorite poets is Emily Dickinson, and if she learned traditional forms, it's not reflected in her own work, as far as I can see.

I also think that any type of rule can be limiting. You referred to the use of traditional forms as rules, and I think that's one accurate way of looking at them. I think of painters when I think of rules and whether they form a necessary foundation. They can, obviously, but it depends a lot on what you want to do. There were wonderful painters whose art probably benefited tremendously from not having the rules and not having art educations. Van Gogh, Rousseau, Khalo, and Grandma Moses come to mind. We need the Van Goghs in poetry as well as in painting.

van gogh was immersed in the art world from birth: his mother was an artist, his brother became an art dealer, v.g worked in his uncle's art dealership in the hague at the age of 15, he studied the formal works through books (especially Travaux des champs by Jean-François Millet and Cours de dessin by Charles Bargue) and spent a lot of spare time hanging around art museums. So, no 'formal' training but steeped in art in all its formality. Not quite the same thing as starting to paint with no artistic knowledge whatsoever.

I do agree with you, though, that the formality of art (how it's taught rather than the 'laws' of each genre) can be restrictive--even enough to put someone off pursuing their love. For those people, it's often better they follow their own path initially, and then generally they'll find their interest will lead them to delving deeper into the history of their genres. They are then ready to learn and reflect and utilise what the past has to offer where they probably weren't beforehand. Some of the best conversations here have been wonderful learning tools for any writer.

 

[oggbashan]

At school I was studying art. I was aiming to take the O level (age 15/16 exam) with the aim of going on to the A level (age 17/18 exam and university entrance).

But my physical disability, I describe myself as ambisinistrous (useless with either hand) meant that although I had sufficient originality my execution was totally inadequate - so I turned to writing instead.

Sometimes I produce an artwork for our local art commune but I know I cannot draw or paint, or carve, so they tend to be 3-D works in found materials.

My brother was ambidextrous. Although he took a science degree, in later life he obtained a further degree in history of art. His ability meant, that while I couldn't draw at all , he could produce two different drawings at the same time, one with either hand.

I was jealous of his art works; he was jealous of my writing skills...

 

[oggbashan]

50 or 100 words?

I find 100 words too easy. Why?

In the far distant past, when I was at school, the English examinations included a few questions on precis. You were given an article of about 2,500 words and expected to reduce it to 100 words while retaining most of the sense.

We did at least one example a week and by the time of the examinations, I could do a precis in about five minutes.

Now, I can think of a story in my head and produce a precis of it in about 100 words in ten minutes. It would take a bit longer to ensure it was exactly 100 words.

But 50 words is much more difficult. It takes me several hours for each one.

 

[oggbashan]

An interesting aside about Van Gogh - If he taught in a school in Ramsgate, his English skills must have been adequate if not better.

 

[butters]

i believe he was fluent in dutch, french, german and english and could read in several others