What Is Poetry?

Hi Dynamaso, this piece from The Guardian 07.01.10 may be of some interest: http://bit.ly/60Sg2D It includes this quote from Andrew Motion: "To develop the imagination is self-validating as well as self-extending," he said. "Poetry is at once a very primitive and a very subtle thing – an expression of our fundamentally human and passionate delight in rhythms, sounds and patterns, and also of our sophisticated need for ingenuity. It is the written form that puts us most deeply in touch with ourselves, because it is a hotwire to our strongest feelings. … The appetite for poetry is fundamental to us as human beings. What on earth have we done, producing an education system in this country which allows the majority of people, by the time they hit puberty, to think otherwise?"

Hi Mark. Funny you should ask this question. On another site someone made the same comment to me as the one you got. This was my answer: What differentiates prose from poetry? The following extracts from “A Dictionary of Literary terms” (J. A. Cuddon - Penguin reference) might give some idea. PROSE - The word derives from the Latin ‘prosa’ or ‘proversa oratio’ - straightforward discourse. Thus a direct, unadorned form of language, written or spoken, in ordinary usage. It differs from poetry or verse in that it is not restricted in rhythm, measure or rhyme. However there are such things as poetic prose and the prose poem. PROSE POEM - A composition printed as prose but distinguished by elements common in poetry: such as elaborately contrived rhythms, figures of speech, rhyme, internal rhyme, assonance, consonance and startling images. POETIC PROSE - Prose which approximates to verse in the use of rhythm, perhaps even a kind of meter, in the elaborate and ornate use of language, and especially in the use of figurative devices like onomatopoeia, assonance and metaphor. Poetic prose is usually employed in short works or in brief passages in longer works in order to achieve a specific effect and to raise the ‘emotional temperature’. Poetry comes in many other forms such as blank verse and free verse and can be informative, entertaining or simply lyrical. Whether my poems or those of other authors on this site meet those criteria is a matter for the reader to determine. Here endeth the lesson. Cheers.

)

The link to the poem is: http://www.abctales.com/story/dynamaso/its-simple-things#comment-335643 For me the problem with this, as poetry, is that if you wrote it out in prose then it would be exactly the same. i.e. the only thing that makes it a poem is the breaking up of the lines - which may be something in itself. I feel that poetry should always add a lot more than the sum of the words - it should embody some form of higher (or lower) resonance through the use of language - and I'm not sure that this poem, and many more like it, do that.

"For me, a more fundamental question is why no-one actually wants to pay for poetry any more. Why is the market so devalued? Are these issues linked?" Well, as far as I know, there's never been a golden age when large numbers of people earned a living by selling copies of their poetry books. I generally struggle with Tony's question (it's lots of other people's question too) because it seems a bit like asking: 'Apart from the chocolate covering this biscuit, why is it a chocolate biscuit?' For me, self-definition, such as the act of writer chopping their prose up (or taking other similar steps) is enough for me to consider it as a poem. But use of poetic devices is also worth considering. It's The Simple Things uses quite a few. Repetition is the most obvious one. The 'I like the way her/she' at the start of each stanza. There's also lots of alliteration and half rhymes. An each stanza - which equates to each thought about her - is the same length. This is definitely enough for it to me a poem, whether or not it's a good poem depends on the effects these things achieve - which will be different for different readers.

Hi Dynamaso, perhaps a poem becomes a poem in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Cultural differences separated by time or geographical distance alter and differentiate taste. I see poetry as a presentation to gain individualised response. In some ways, Lit Crit is a fallacy unless relying on deconstructing structural components, which are inevitably subject to continual debate and change, all else is subjective and context bound. Can a definition of poetry be globalised? I hope not.

"As little as 100 years ago, poetry still had a general cultural value. These days, a young person is more likely to point at and quote a set of favourite lyrics before they quote an actual poem." I don't know if this is true. Aside from one or two poets who work they might have been forced to learn at school - which is a very different thing to the current status of pop music - was the average person in the street really any more likely to be quoting poetry that they are now? Is there any evidence for this? I imagine people were more likely to singing folk songs and other traditional rhymes. And going back 50 years or so beyond that, I'd be very surprised if most people - the general audience that now enjoys pop music - had even heard of Shelley, Byron or Wordsworth at the point they were writing. My guess is that, aside from a very few well know poems and poets, poetry has been a fairly obscure business for a very long time.

Poetry a medium for any message Posted by jxmartin on March 1, 2008 - 01:20 from the ABC set BUFFALO STORIES - Joseph Xavier Martin Poetry is amongst the most treasured of our oral traditions. Hundreds of years ago, poets sat around smoky peat fires reciting tales of their ancestors to an audience of the unlettered. The rhyme schemes and other devices made memorization easier for the poet. Few works were written down. The rhythmic ululation of words entertained the audience with heroic stories of slain dragons and great deeds by those who had ccome before. It was a much treasured experience for all who heard it. During the middle ages newspapers, as we know them, did not exist in Europe. Traveling bards would appear at the castles and guild halls, reciting epics that served as the news of the day. They also served as oral historians for the various nobles that they entertained. They were paid with bed and board. Even in those days poetry was a hard business to make a living at. The audience wanted to be entertained. Obliging bards crafted grand epics like Beowulf to please their listeners. In later centuries sagas would serve the same purpose. Shakespeare in 17th century England detailed the foibles of his era. Kipling extolled the exploits of the Britissh Colonial Raj in India. Tennyson, with his stirring Charge of the Light Brigade, gave praise to the military exploits of Great Britain in the nineteenth century. William Blake created new lands and far away adventures with his works. The novel and the short story had yet to dawn on the collective psyche of the modern era. With all due respect to the technical aspects of writing poetry, I think many of us are enchanted simply by the musical resonance of the rhyming and metered syllables. Like singing in the shower, we repeat favored passages in our heads, enjoying again the experience of hearing them over and over again. The soothing sounds of assonance or the memory catchers like rhyme schemes and alliteration are clever constructions that tickle the ear and give a piece rhythm and cadence. Onomatopoeia gives our fancy a target to focus on. “Moo,” “Baaa” and other animal sounds tug at our imagination and place the creatures vividly within the body of the work, giving it texture, life and yes, fun. They also aid in developing the most treasured aid of the poet, imagery. With an artful turn of phrase, or a skilled double entendre, a poet can evoke a smile or make a listener think of whole ranges of thoughts using his imagination. Constructing so glib and artful a balance is not a task that comes readily to he pen. An array of technical devices aid the poet in getting his message across. Iambic pentameter, dactyl tetrameter and other measures of line foot are a means of mechanically attempting to insert rhythm and cadence to a work. We speak naturally with a certain cadence, one that is pleasing to the ear of the listener. Trying to write that way is not so easy. The right word or construction may have to be contorted and reshaped a dozen times until it fits into that mysterious verbal melody that is soft upon our ears. To configure that illusive manner of speech, you have to first parse the lines that you have written to determine if the pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables and number of their groupings fits harmoniously into the work at hand. Like a tribal drumbeat, we seek a primitive rhythm that will aid the imagery constructed to evoke a mind picture in the ears and imagination of the listener. Our own body rhythms respond to a structured and repetitive musical beat. Walk near any dance floor and you will see people swaying to the rhythm of the structured acoustical presentation. So too with Poetry. Say things in the right cadence and your listener's will respond, mesmerized by the drum beat of your message. It is a task much sought after but difficult to achieve. For the gifted, playing with these word combinations can be a mental exercise of great pleasure. Picture a Byron ,Keats or Sandburg painting verbal artifice on an imaginary musical score. They have to blend the imagery of the idea transmuted with the aural conveyance that delivers it, all in a rhythmic undulation of sight and sound that will tantalize and amuse the listener. Sometimes, they create new words and sounds to express their ideas . An artful contraction of a word or maybe a rhyming nonsensical utterance might be just the right sound that fits into the verbal mosaic. Sometimes, the rules are followed, sometimes ignored. It is the end result that justifies the verbal means. If it works, everything if well and good. You can picture some of the masters evolving motifs that are variations on their own written themes. They are experimenting with form and texture to create new mediums that will better express their thoughts. E.E.Cummings and others are the extreme in terms of form but they are by no means the first to play with a set of words and twist it to a desired end. Typography they call it. It is a visual setting of letter type so that it sets up symmetrically on a page, pleasing to the eye. Altering this format can create motion or disorder or a dozen other visuals. It is still a formatic novelty in poetry. Playing with format gives rise to a central question of poetry. Why are you writing this stuff and what is it supposed to mean? Does your embedded imagery support the message you wish carried to the listener or are you just laying down a visual rosharch ink blot that will entice the reader to draw his/her own conclusions? Do you want your message clearly understood or are you offering the reader a acoustical treasure hunt? In that same vein, are you writing this piece for your own enjoyment or that of others? Is public acclaim your goal or do you wish to entertain and enlighten your readers. These are pressing questions best answered before you ever write anything down. Poetry, as an art form is of tremendous benefit to writers of all genres. Economy of expression is a wonderful by product. In poetry you condense a chapter of verse to a few lines and earn the undying appreciation of the readers. Rhythm of expression is also a plus. You read at certain speeds just as you speak. The increasing speed of the cadence can signal rising action or dramatic denouement. It works both in poetry and in prose. Embedded symbols, the life of poetry, give texture to prose. The artful imagery sets the mood and stage for the ideas we wish to convey. They do so subtly and almost unconsciously, making the reader draw the picture for him/her self. Lastly, poetry brings whimsy, caprice and sometimes just plain fun to writing. It conveys a range of emotions quickly and artfully so that the reader is entranced by the artful flow. Whenever we write an artful passage, we do so standing on the shoulders and imitating the forms of a long line of wordsmiths who have come before us. Originality is a forgotten imitation. J.X.M

"I recall my parents often quoting bits and pieces of these and other poets to us as children (Henry Lawson, Banjo Patterson, Rudyard Kipling etc). They, along with a lot of children of their time, learnt these poems at school and read them for entertainment. But this could very well be a cultural quirk." I don't think it's necessarily a cultural quirk, what I'm questioning is whether it's something that's particularly changed. When I was at school we learnt poems by Michael Rosen, Roger McGough and similar popular poets, I can still remember bits of the poems. What I'm questioning is whether poetry in a general sense is any more obscure now than it was 100 years ago and whether the general public used to value poetry highly but have stopped doing so.

Thanks for a great read, everyone. For me, this has been one of the most interesting threads on the forums for a long time.

"Both mine and my wife's parents remember times when there was always a few people who could entertain a gathering with a piece of poetry or two." I supposed that something I'm poorly placed to comment on. I attend loads of parties where poetry's an element of the proceedings but I am imagine that's because I'm involved with the poetry scene. You're probably right that it less likely that people would perform other people's well known poems at parties, although with the explosion of writing groups and creative writing courses, it's maybe more likely that people will read out a few of their own. "Sure, no-one ever got rich by writing poetry - but there seem to be fewer editors willing to pay even a token amount compared to what I remember when I first started writing in the 1970s." I'm poorly placed to comment on the situation in the 1970s. Who were these people paying for poetry? Do you mean magazine editors? These days, the sort of outlets that both publish poetry and pay at all - national newspapers, the Spectator, Poetry Review - pay for poetry. Most book publishers - including fairly small independents - pay one way or another. My guess is that what's changed isn't that there's less opportunities for poets to get paid - there's loads of opportunities for poets to get paid to read - but that there's more poets competing for those opportunities. "How would a 21st Century version of Pam Ayres fare in Britain's Got Talent?" My guess is that they'd do very well. Laura Dockrill - not like Pam Ayres in appearance, sensibility or subject matter but a mostly humourous accessible rhyming poet whose publishers aim at the mass market - has been all over the mainstream media in the last year.

Hi Buk, you note 'What I'm questioning is whether poetry in a general sense is any more obscure now than it was 100 years ago and whether the general public used to value poetry highly but have stopped doing so.' I wonder if the popularity of published poets superceded oral tradition only in the sense that a national education and literacy program was introduced only just over a century ago. Until then, it's more likely that the poetry of the Bible, David's psalms would be learned by heart and recited in the home or at the board schools etc. Verse and songs relating to local life, in dialect, may have had prominence at that time. New verse and songs introduced by touring companies on the stage and 'vaudeville'. Maybe late C19th and early C20th published poets favoured by middle class readers filtered down through varied school boards, informing generational tastes as national literacy grew. I dunno, pass the teapot! 'there's loads of opportunities for poets to get paid to read - but that there's more poets competing for those opportunities.' It is entirely possible that via performance poetry on You Tube, My Space and the varied open mic venues, theatre performances etc that Poetry is experiencing a return to the Troubadour rather than the page :-)

"Verse and songs relating to local life, in dialect, may have had prominence at that time. New verse and songs introduced by touring companies on the stage and 'vaudeville'." Well, my contention is that published poets never did and haven't superceded this tradition and that this stuff is still going strong unaffected by published poetry. The local verses and songs carry on in slightly varied, often less local forms - from nursery rhymes to playground songs to football terrace chants. The stuff from the touring companies has gradually been replaced by popular music and TV soaps. My overall point is that the charge - not one you're making but that's suggest by the original 'poetry's not as popular as it used to be comments' poetry is too obscure for the average person to take an interest in could just as much have been leveled at Milton, then Shelley as it can be at (current toast of the poetry establishment) Don Paterson.

Have neither of you heard of Seamus Heaney?

Swinburne was so popular in his day that he was mobbed wherever he went. People would queue up to buy his latest poem, learn it and then rush around quoting it. Nowadays we regard him as an over flowery very minor poet. A bit like an old boy band. Pope also had a massive impact in his day, as did Dryden.

Harking back to some of the themes touched on in this thread, I've just spotted this enterprising young chap's plans for a Pennine Way Walk in a troubadour stylee, supporting his endeavours by passing the hat :-) http://www.simonarmitage.com/ Magic!