Poetry Discussions(#1: Message versus Form) - Writers Forum

Ilasir Maroa · 10-18-2007, 07:48 PM

I read an interesting comment from female_writer, which said that she feels form is emphasized over meaning on this board. I do not propose to debate that. But I do think it would be interesting to discuss the virtues of message versus poetic form. Almost all the threads here are poems being posted for critique, and I think there are just some things that can't be adressed in a single critique thread. Anybody interested in some basic discussions of poetry in general(starting with the quote from FW)?

SteMcGrath · 10-18-2007, 08:01 PM

I think alot of people are just articulating language, to make beautiful verse with absolutely no display of meaning. Someone can get perfect meter and interesting language, and often use complex vocabulary that doesn't need to be used. This is a hot topic in my head lately. And tomorrow I'll have more to say. Alas!

Baron · 10-18-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

I read an interesting comment from female_writer, which said that she feels form is emphasized over meaning on this board. I do not propose to debate that. But I do think it would be interesting to discuss the virtues of message versus poetic form. Almost all the threads here are poems being posted for critique, and I think there are just some things that can't be adressed in a single critique thread. Anybody interested in some basic discussions of poetry in general(starting with the quote from FW)?

you've started it. message versus form is another endless argument and much depends on just how free you think that free verse should be. In reality a good message won't carry much weight if the format is really awful.

Ilasir Maroa · 10-18-2007, 08:18 PM

I ws thinking of this more in terms of the other way around. I think meaning is important, but that you need a fair amount of poetic devices and/or structure to call it poetry. I've recently read "I am what I am" by Rosario and (insert other name here) Morales.

It was based entirely on repetition
And a mash of unconnected metaphor
With little poetry
but a lot of meaning.

Honestly, I think it would have made more sense as a short prose piece.

Anyway, like I said before, FW was refering to the problem being the other way 'round here. I'd be interested to hear both sides, though.

Eiji Tunsinagi · 10-18-2007, 08:28 PM

Form and Meaning mean nothing to me without the elusive feeling. I believe form, even in free verse, is incredibly important (moreover, flow), and meaning is a close second and usually in a toss-up for 1st...but both are useless without feeling. Not only should a piece feel as if the writer feels it, but this feeling should be strong enough to evoke a feeling beyond "that was well structured" or "I caught the metaphor well enough" -- A transcendental piece does all three.

I think poetry is as much magic as cooking. It's all magic.

Baron · 10-18-2007, 08:28 PM

My perspective on my own writing is that sometimes I like to paint a picture and other times I like to be abstract and occasionally a little of both. The important thing to me is that whichever way it goes, whether free verse or metered thyme, it needs to be lyrical or it is not poetry. to be lyrical there has to be some format even if it is not obvious.

Eiji Tunsinagi · 10-18-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron

My perspective on my own writing is that sometimes I like to paint a picture and other times I like to be abstract and occasionally a little of both. The important thing to me is that whichever way it goes, whether free verse or metered thyme, it needs to be lyrical or it is not poetry. to be lyrical there has to be some format even if it is not obvious.

Hm. That's sort of what I think. If it has no adequate flow or feeling, it is not adequate poetry.

Ilasir Maroa · 10-18-2007, 08:34 PM

yes, good responses... yay!=D>

Now look at the other side... do we really favor poems with structure over meaning, as in they have great structure, but lack meaning. This is a claim made by FW. Do you agree?

Eiji Tunsinagi · 10-18-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

yes, good responses... yay!=D>

Now look at the other side... do we really favor poems with structure over meaning, as in they have great structure, but lack meaning. This is a claim made by FW. Do you agree?

Very rarely do I favour a piece strictly based on structure. Ever. But, I have favoured work based strictly on meaning.

So I think I might be implying that meaning rules over structure...?

Baron · 10-18-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

yes, good responses... yay!=D>

Now look at the other side... do we really favor poems with structure over meaning, as in they have great structure, but lack meaning. This is a claim made by FW. Do you agree?

How often do you see a critique saying "give this something concrete" or "give us the meat"? dannyboy does it to me all the time. Even if a poem is abstract there has to be a hook in it, something that makes the reader want to read it.

Ilasir Maroa · 10-18-2007, 08:51 PM

Really Eiji? is that what you are implying you goddamned prose poet traitor?!

Sorry, Eiji. Clancy's been playing "Whack a Witch(Wiccan)" in the "Do You Believe in God" thread, and I'm a little annoyed at the moment...

Anyway, I think you need both, and while one can make up for a small lack of the abscence in the other, I think having both in balanced or appropriate proportions is the mark of a great poem.

Baron, good points, just asking. What I should really be asking is FW's definition of meaning...

Baron · 10-18-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

Really Eiji? is that what you are implying you goddamned prose poet traitor?!

Sorry, Eiji. Clancy's been playing "Whack a Witch(Wiccan)" in the "Do You Believe in God" thread, and I'm a little annoyed at the moment...

Anyway, I think you need both, and while one can make up for a small lack of the abscence in the other, I think having both in balanced or appropriate proportions is the mark of a great poem.

Baron, good points, just asking. What I should really be asking is FW's definition of meaning...

That answer you'll have to get from Female Writer.

Don't you know Clancy well enough yet to know that he just likes to wind people up?

Ilasir Maroa · 10-18-2007, 09:10 PM

Of course I know that! And sometimes i feel like getting wound up...

vangoghsear · 10-19-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron

In reality a good message won't carry much weight if the format is really awful.

This sort of sums up my feeling. A poem with a fantastic meaning will be better if the form is good, and suffer if the form is bad.

That being said, most beginning poets use great form (rhymes just like a sonnet, a repeating pattern, etc.) and lacks any substantial imagery and/or employs a one dimensional flat meaning.

Every poem should have some sort of poetic devices, or form, to distinguish it from prose, but minimal form with a great meaning will make a better poem than great form and little substance.

Mermaid on the breakwater · 10-19-2007, 04:49 PM

The devices and all the other nuances of what is essentially poetry are just there to help you put across your message in the shortest way possible.

Message is the number 1 thing. I like poems that combine a number of themes and dip into history and all of that kind of thing so that I can relate to it. If it's just what I call "pretty poetry" I usually get bored after the first stanza. But then I am essentially a novel writer and not really a poet. But, as an example, I simply love Duffy's poetry because it's such a brilliant mixture of themes and she manipulates common conventions of form to mirror the message.

It's important that your form matches your intended message. Images on their own and "pretty poetry" is dead boring. Even if the poem is immaculately presented. I prefer poetry that is rough at the edges anyway because I like unique styles.