Thread: Rules for poetry?

I'm sorta new here, and I noticed people speaking of meters, metrics, structures and what-not and it has me baffled, what exactly dose this mean? I always thought of poetry as a song of sorts, are there rules to poetry? I know this must seem like an idiotic question to the experts on here however I find myself getting enthralled in poetry and want to know it's rules if such a thing exist.

Please and thank you.

It's not an idiotic question at all, Chiefspider. The rules of poetry are slippery and hard to pin down in one spot. There are so many different forms and different rules which apply to each one. Here are a few links to some of them.

How to Measure the Rhyme and Meter in a Poem | eHow.com

http://www.writingforums.com/writing...se-poetry.html This one is on this site.

Types of Poetry: All the Different Types of Poems

Poetry Terms

Thank you, these links will help a great deal

A really good question Chiefspider, I wonder that myself all the time. I'm toddling off to read those links, the technical nitty-gritty of poetry is definitely something I need to work on. Cheers for the links Gumby.

I like to think there are no rules to poetry. As long as someone can look at it and say "That's poetry" then it is! Trying to write rules for poetry is as constricting as defining poetry. It can be so abstractly wonderful that there are truly no boundaries that you can't explore with poetry.

However, reading a lot of poetry will help you understand some of the general 'rules' people might associate (the general way a poem should be formed etc.)

I read a book recently which I found quite interesting - Stephen Fry's An Ode Less Travelled. Check it out some time if you're interested in developing your poetic knowledge.

Vary insightful nick thank you and I will check out the book

A very useful site: http://www.volecentral.co.uk/vf/ every poetic form known to man, with examples!

Originally Posted by Nick

I like to think there are no rules to poetry. As long as someone can look at it and say "That's poetry" then it is! Trying to write rules for poetry is as constricting as defining poetry. It can be so abstractly wonderful that there are truly no boundaries that you can't explore with poetry.

However, reading a lot of poetry will help you understand some of the general 'rules' people might associate (the general way a poem should be formed etc.)

I read a book recently which I found quite interesting - Stephen Fry's An Ode Less Travelled. Check it out some time if you're interested in developing your poetic knowledge.

I agree with you. I like free form.
No boundaries in Poertry is no boundaries in thoughst and words.

There are not rules to poetry unless you want to limit yourself to a certain form -- for example, if you want to write a sonnet, it cannot be 4 lines long.

The words you're thinking of like meter, rhyme scheme, etc -- they are not rules. Calling them rules would be like calling the sideline on a soccer/football field a rule. Or a free throw or a three point shot. They're not rules; they are vocabulary/terminology which makes talking about poetry easier.

Well said JW. Rules apply to form, not thought. I find that writing in a fixed form helps me be more disciplined when I move to free verse.

Exactly -- plenty of people say, "form? never! If I force my thoughts to fit inside your box, they won't be true anymore!" And they use that as an excuse to be lazy and not pay attention to the form, function, and meaning of every syllable.

Sure, free verse is a wonderful form for those who eschew forms, and I write half of my poems in it. But by using sonnets and other rigid forms as training to pay attention to how every syllable fits together, I'm able to craft free verse with much more control and attention to detail than I could otherwise. Besides which, a beautifully written poem that is crafted well enough that people don't realize it perfectly fits a form is even more impressive than if it were free verse.

Also, only by being truly practiced with the rules are you best able to break them. And beauty, to me, is not found in the free form sprawl; it's found in the purposeful breaking.

I love what you say here. I like the puzzling required by formal poetry. I think it's the same part of me that likes programming. It's not restrictive, it's constrained. Like what you can and cannot do in your "Sunday go-to-meetin'" clothes. You make different choices but they aren't automatically inferior or superior.

I write mostly rhyming poetry. I like the lyrical rhythm. I like the 'build' aspect that astroannie speaks of as well. Some forms, for me, are exactly like working a puzzle. I've read a considerable amount of free verse. Some is very beautiful, exciting, compelling ... some is just being lazy (like a poorly written limerick). I've made several attempts to write free verse. It's not pretty . I do plan to keep trying and I do hope to improve. That goes for my endeavors in form poetry as well. Very good discussion y'all.

fp

In aren't really any rules, just guidelines and preferences.

I respectfully disagree Edgewise. First, guidelines are rules, or if not, then what are they?

Second, in what respect are you using preferences? Too often new poets jump right to free verse and what it ends up[ being is a prose paragraph with no punctuation and oddly spaced. That poet might argue that it is all a matter of preference, but I would argue that it isn't even poetry. Free verse, good free verse at any rate, takes at least as much work as formal poetry.

Example:
The little
BIRDS
sitting in their
NESTS

sing songs of
the

HUNGER

of the masses.

Is that poetry? It took me longer to type than to make up.

Free verse is fine, but you've got to know the rules before you start to break them.

Note, this is just my own opinion so feel free to ignore at will.