Join the Neopoet online poetry workshop and community to improve as a writer, meet fellow poets, and showcase your work. Sign up, submit your poetry, and get started.
Structure Choices
In the interest of full disclosure, I prefer to write rhymed poetry in either iambic (soft - hard) or trochaic (hard -soft) tetrameter and that's the technical way of saying, basically, 8 syllables per line, and either unstress the fist syllable and stress the next or stress the first syllable, unstress the next, lather, rinse, repeat. But while that is my preference, I still write in other forms both as part of the critiques I offer and as part of my own experimentation and development as a poet.
Occasionally I see people make blanket statements about poetry detailing why one style or structure is superior or inferior or that all poetry should be structured like X and I seriously shake my head and wonder if the statements are a result of inexperience or if there is something else going on. Normally it's the inexperience thing that is to blame. These people have seen poetry for years but just started writing and have decided that they know everything.
Occasionally, though, it's an arrogance thing. People have decided that they, and only they, know what makes good poetry and berate those who do not follow their instructions or write in forms of which they do not approve.
Cases of the former are annoying but it is the latter instances that make me shake my head and wonder. After all, unless they are the highest paid poet in the world, their opinion about poetry may be valid for their own damn selves but carries no untoward weight outside of their own damn skulls and any representation that it does is just, bluntly, stupid.
I recently read, as part of a critique of a poem, a line that stated, basically:
"If you choose rhyme you are constrained by words that fit and must discard all other words and why do that to yourself?"
As an explanation of why using rhyme cheapens all poetry. Here's a funny thing, each time we write, we, as poets, make conscious decisions of what words to include, what words to exclude, and what words we won't even let in the same room. Poetry is all about choices. Word choice, structure choice, pacing choice, meter choice, tempo choice, hell, even punctuation and capitalization choice. Each positive choice is a rejection of all other iterations so the argument above just seemed idiotic, as if made from a position of wanting to be important rather than being an important thought.
As I said to others recently, Dickens wrote to pay the rent. Now he did so while constructing some truly incredible stories but he started with stories, not in an attempt to write the Great English Novel. Along the way his talent and style and perseverance constructed the Great English Novel, but that was not the goal.
And the point here? Write. Listen to critique but write in any style or manner you like and if you hear from anyone that your chosen structure is wrong, ignore them. I'm not saying ignore critique, embrace and steal every good idea to which you are exposed, what I am saying is that if you write in blank verse and someone tells you only idiots write in blank verse, point them to a patch of sand so they can pound it.
Ignore the voices who tell you one style is superior while utilizing every tool possible to write in a superior manner in your chosen style.
Occasionally I see people make blanket statements about poetry detailing why one style or structure is superior or inferior or that all poetry should be structured like X and I seriously shake my head and wonder if the statements are a result of inexperience or if there is something else going on. Normally it's the inexperience thing that is to blame. These people have seen poetry for years but just started writing and have decided that they know everything.
Occasionally, though, it's an arrogance thing. People have decided that they, and only they, know what makes good poetry and berate those who do not follow their instructions or write in forms of which they do not approve.
Cases of the former are annoying but it is the latter instances that make me shake my head and wonder. After all, unless they are the highest paid poet in the world, their opinion about poetry may be valid for their own damn selves but carries no untoward weight outside of their own damn skulls and any representation that it does is just, bluntly, stupid.
I recently read, as part of a critique of a poem, a line that stated, basically:
"If you choose rhyme you are constrained by words that fit and must discard all other words and why do that to yourself?"
As an explanation of why using rhyme cheapens all poetry. Here's a funny thing, each time we write, we, as poets, make conscious decisions of what words to include, what words to exclude, and what words we won't even let in the same room. Poetry is all about choices. Word choice, structure choice, pacing choice, meter choice, tempo choice, hell, even punctuation and capitalization choice. Each positive choice is a rejection of all other iterations so the argument above just seemed idiotic, as if made from a position of wanting to be important rather than being an important thought.
As I said to others recently, Dickens wrote to pay the rent. Now he did so while constructing some truly incredible stories but he started with stories, not in an attempt to write the Great English Novel. Along the way his talent and style and perseverance constructed the Great English Novel, but that was not the goal.
And the point here? Write. Listen to critique but write in any style or manner you like and if you hear from anyone that your chosen structure is wrong, ignore them. I'm not saying ignore critique, embrace and steal every good idea to which you are exposed, what I am saying is that if you write in blank verse and someone tells you only idiots write in blank verse, point them to a patch of sand so they can pound it.
Ignore the voices who tell you one style is superior while utilizing every tool possible to write in a superior manner in your chosen style.