Thread: Rhythm as it pertains to poetry

I am a music person. And a drummer. As such, I tend to lean towards poems that have delightful rhythms imbued in the sentences. Even when writing verses and rhymes I take joy in writing rhythmic sentences that roll off the tongue. I may not succeed very well, but that's certainly my preference.

I was reading earlier a poem on someone's blog and this particular piece of writing made an effort to rhyme in an ABAB style, but the sentences were of all different lengths. When reading it, I found the rhythm to be almost stuttering.

I used to think poetry was grounded in rhythm. My earliest exposition to some form of rhyme and verse or what I would call poetry at the time was the little tidbits in Roald Dahl's books. And that remains still my favourite form of poetry to read and write.

What are you thoughts about rhythms as it pertains to poetry?

Does it hold a high level of importance in what you read and enjoy? Is there such a thing as good rhythm/bad rhythm/perfect rhythm etc.?

I'm thoroughly aware poetry takes many different forms, but I want to concentrate on the rhythmic aspect of poetry. I've read much free verse and poetic expression, things that are truly beautiful. Yet, there is an unmistakeable joy when I read something that has incredible rhythm - a joy to read out loud even.

Do you think rhythm is a much 'older' or more 'old school' method of poetry writing? How much of rhythm do you think about when writing your works? Does it cross your mind at all?

Beat in poetry is generally called "meter".
Oddly, the poet terms for meter, such as iambic and dactylic and trochaic are probably the only words in English to describe rhythm. I don't know of any musical terms that would tell you, "The beat is --/ --/"
One instance of beat ( --/- or whatever) is called a "foot". So "iambic pentameter" means each line has five "feet" of iambic meter, the basic da da boom repeated five times.

Obviously there's a limit to how complex a rhythm can be verbally described, but there are ways of expressing the basic polka or Irish jig beats in terms of poetic nomenclature.

Meter, like rhyme, has lost prestige in our times. There are some bad effects of this, as you note. At the worst, you see somebody writing something that careens along with an obnoxious beat, and keeps skipping the beat. The writer is unaware of the sonic rhythms, therefore not in control of them.
On the upside, being aware of beat and controlling it can help you. Often very subtly. Poets who write to read aloud tend to have this more under control than those who write for the page and nothing more.

I don't suggest that you rush out and learn these terms, then consciously apply them (like I don't think most writerly jargon actually helps writers much) but I think you might enjoy taking a look at a list of some of these metrics for your own information.
The important thing is not regimentation, but avoiding violating the esthetics of rhythm.

A great book for any poet (and you might have noticed I'm quite the opposite of a guy who recommends writing books) is "The Book of Forms" by Lewis Turco. It has this stuff, plus templates for sonnets and villanelles and sestinas and dozens of poetic forms you never heard of.
But hey, you can access the information online for free wikipedia has some voluminous pages on poetic forms
Here's there list of metric feet (huh, huh, huh "metric feet")
Foot (Prosody)

By the way, a metric foot called the "stopped anapestic" (essentially "da da BOOM pause") is very prominent in rock, rap, heavy metal, etc. and notorious because it's said to cause stunning and fatique of the central nervous system.

Poetry is supposed to get inside your body, and the good stuff does.

If a poem doesn't have rhythm, in my opinion it's just a bunch of pretty words. Poetry is all about rhythm. Rhyming? That's up to the poet. I've read some fantastic poems that don't rhyme at all. But I've never read a poem without a sense of rhythm and liked it.

Well, there are on-page forms that don't rely on it. Concrete poems, for instance. You know, poem about a tree spaced so they make a figure of a tree or something.

But I agree that it's a very major part of lyrical poetry. And the thing is, it's there whether people realize it or not: just some is chaotic or incompetent.

I like to see some poetic quality to define a poem. I was into classical poetry long before I began to learn about modern poetry and there is much that I read that doesn't deserve the name, in my opinion. I write in both free verse and structured formats now but always try to inject some poetic quality, like assonance or consonance as well as beat. I do read my poetry aloud and I'm not satisfied until I feel comfortable with it that way. My favourite form is to combine modern and classical elements, something I've learned from my husband/mentor. A couple of poems in my blog are example of this, such as this one, http://www.writingforums.com/entry.p...-Bheanntraighe

In answer to the original post I'd say that if you're aiming at that rhythm in your work then you're taking a right road. I'm really not impressed by prose masquerading as poetry with very few exceptions.

There has to be more to a poem than the lines not going all the way to the right side of the page.

Originally Posted by lin

There has to be more to a poem than the lines not going all the way to the right side of the page.

True there.

Originally Posted by lin

Meter, like rhyme, has lost prestige in our times.

Why though? What has happened to it? Do you still look for it in the poetry you read though?

I certainly still do.

I know there's a thread that has a description of what poetry should or can be. I know it's hard to define what it really is, but to me rhyme and rhythm have always been a large part of it. It seems to have disappeared a little as you said. But why?

And also, what are the pros and cons of poets who've moved away from the old style of fixed meters and rhyming patterns that you've encountered?

And, Lady S, that kind of poetry really really gets me. I love it. It's so beautifully written, and is an incredible joy to read aloud to myself.

Thanks for the compliment. I'm really pleased that you enjoyed it.

There has to be more to a poem than the lines not going all the way to the right side of the page.

You are so right. People who can't write poetry have made poetry hard to define to bolster their own argument. I'm convinced that those who knock any kind of form only do so because they can't achieve it. There is still a place for structured verse and a demand for it. The average joe will just raise his eyebrows at much of what is called poetry and there is still a demand for work that's well thought out.

For me, real poetry is just obvious for what it is, wherever you read it.

K3ng, I would say that both meter and rhyme fell victim to popular music. The increasing presence of music in people's daily lives from the forties on, linked with the increasing sophistication and poetic quality of lyrics, especially in the sixties on, were hard for poetry to "compete with".

Academia retreated into this whole, "it's just too complex and subtle for you booshwah to comprehend" thing and poetry lost out. Almost every family of my parent's generation would have at least one anthology of poems around the house. Not so any more. I used to recite poems at dinner table and in the car, and listen to my dad do so. And he wasn't any literati, he was an army lifer.

This might seem like a strained rationale, but it parallels as similar Modern trend in painting, which at least some major critics accept: that abstraction became the de rigeur default for painting because of competition from photography. Why spend 30 years learning the master system route to being the next Gerricault or David when you can buy a camera and produce perfect mimesis instantly?

It's a retreat from art into ART. And just as you walk into snooty gallery and museum shows full of empty canvases bolstered by lengthy bio/credential papers on the wall, poetry has reached the stage where you put in your time in the university, work up through the journals and network, and then just put out any sort of shit to applause because people can't really tell the difference between fine art poetry and computer generated drivel anymore. (and that's no exaggeration...I've seen it proven, done some proving of it myself)

Doesn't mean you have to go that way. Just if you want to make it in the big bucks world of pro poetry.

A suggestion.... seek out venues for reading poetry aloud. Or create them.

There's still a place for crat in poetry, as there is in abstract art. It's the old deal of learning to do it properly before you start breaking the rules. The other side of this is that people will still buy stuff they can relate to rather than stuff they can't understand.

Things go in cycles and as classical influence found it's way back into popular music, with the prog rock bands of the late sixties to bands like Muses today, so the craft finds its way back into poetry.

I have to agree with Vicki's (Lady S) view, that many of those who knock crafted work do so because of their own inability to produce it.

Originally Posted by lin

A suggestion.... seek out venues for reading poetry aloud. Or create them.

Those venues are often nests of performance poetry/spoken word. And the problem with performance poetry is that performance poetry pieces are often little more than theatrical bits of prose with lots of yelling and wavy arm movements.

A good argument could me made, I think, that the rise of spoken word as a distinct form contributed to the death of more formal poetic conventions, including rhythm, in the public consciousness. Poetry is more often written for the stage instead of the page.

The demise of more formal poetic conventions is greatly exaggerated. Just read Carol Ann Duffy, the current Poet Laureate.

Those venues are often nests of performance poetry/spoken word.

Well, that settles that. Though many would note that most poetry readings in bookstores, coffehouses, etc. are just plain ol poetry reading. Which is, yeah, spoken word. ?????

The idea that spoken poetry was what eroded formal poetry is so peculiar I'd better not use any other more fitting adjective.

Actually spoken poetry predates the written word.
And the main reason for meter and rhyme in poems is traceable straight back to the bards and skalds. It's easier to remember. Homer didn't read from notes.
This same principle is why so many stage plays for kids are written in rhyme, as a pnemonic aid.

The golden ages of popular poetry were very much involved with oral performances, from family readings to Chattaquas and tours by famous poets. Vachel Lindsay was one of the "rock stars" of his day, packing in crowds to hear him, groupies, the works. Same thing in UK and Europe.

The idea that oral poetry suddenly caught on in the twenties or thirties and pushed poetry out of form is extremely odd. Or possibly just uninformed.


Yes, there are still poets who have success with form, even rhyme. But they are almost that famous oxymoron, the exceptions that prove the rule. Anybody showing up in academia and submitting something that rhymes in iambs is going to find himself paddling up the famous creek without the proverbial paddle.