A Limerick is a popular form of short, humorous verse, often nonsensical and frequently ribald. It consists of five lines, rhyming aabba, and the dominant meter is anapestic (a metrical foot composed of two short syllables followed by one long one, as in the word seventeen. 2. A line of verse using this meter; for example, “’Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house”), with two feet in the third and fourth lines and three feet in the others. Examples of limerick:
"The limerick packs laughs anatomical
into space that is quite economical,
But the good ones I’ve seen
so seldom are clean
and the clean ones so seldom are comical."
"There once was a young man from Kew
who found a dead mouse in his stew.
Said the waiter, “Don’t shout
or wave it about,
or the rest will be wanting one too!”
"There was an old man from Peru,
who dreamed he was eating his shoe.
He woke in a fright
in the middle of the night
and found it was perfectly true."
The origin of the term is obscure, but a group of poets in Co. Limerick, Ireland, wrote limericks in Irish in the 18th cent. The first collections in English date from c.1820. Among the most famous are those in E. Lear's Book of Nonsense (1846).
Full Version: Limerick
Thanks Daniel! :)
Create with ideas you have thought;
that writer's block; you will have fought.
New rhythm is calling!
Though words you'll be mauling,
you'll paint what your mind's image caught.
Create with ideas you have thought;
that writer's block; you will have fought.
New rhythm is calling!
Though words you'll be mauling,
you'll paint what your mind's image caught.
I know not to write when I'm tired,
it's been far too long, now I'm wired.
I've lost it, the beat?
I'm spraining... my feet!
That great lesson's got me inspired!
*A reply to Daniel on teaching me limerick at another site.
it's been far too long, now I'm wired.
I've lost it, the beat?
I'm spraining... my feet!
That great lesson's got me inspired!
*A reply to Daniel on teaching me limerick at another site.
There was a postman called Wally
Who went to work on a trolley.
He'd ring and he'd ding
Then letters he'd fling
To passing bystanders, by golly.
The tram was double nine one
Or post truck nine double none
To passengers and tram run
Nine double nine one,
And for Wally a sackful of fun.
Who went to work on a trolley.
He'd ring and he'd ding
Then letters he'd fling
To passing bystanders, by golly.
The tram was double nine one
Or post truck nine double none
To passengers and tram run
Nine double nine one,
And for Wally a sackful of fun.
Remember this one, LorII?
Feet-Shuffling
Do cross-overs make you perturbed?
Your rhythm was somewhat disturbed.
But IF you don’t like it,
I’ll just take a hike; it
is fine for my tongue to be curbed!
© Daniel J Ricketts 19 Nov 2002
. . . or this one?
Limerick Lesson for LorII
uh ONE-2-3; ONE-2-3; KICK it!
uh ONE-2-3; ONE [That’s the TICKet!]
then ONE-2-3; ONE
and ONE-2-3; ONE
then ONE-2-3; ONE [See, you’ll LICK it!]
© Daniel J Ricketts 26 Nov 2002
Feet-Shuffling
Do cross-overs make you perturbed?
Your rhythm was somewhat disturbed.
But IF you don’t like it,
I’ll just take a hike; it
is fine for my tongue to be curbed!
© Daniel J Ricketts 19 Nov 2002
. . . or this one?
Limerick Lesson for LorII
uh ONE-2-3; ONE-2-3; KICK it!
uh ONE-2-3; ONE [That’s the TICKet!]
then ONE-2-3; ONE
and ONE-2-3; ONE
then ONE-2-3; ONE [See, you’ll LICK it!]
© Daniel J Ricketts 26 Nov 2002
QUOTE (Just Daniel @ Sep. 16 2003, 00:27)
Remember this one, LorII?
Feet-Shuffling
Do cross-overs make you perturbed?
Your rhythm was somewhat disturbed.
But IF you don’t like it,
I’ll just take a hike; it
is fine for my tongue to be curbed!
© Daniel J Ricketts 19 Nov 2002
. . . or this one?
Limerick Lesson for LorII
uh ONE-2-3; ONE-2-3; KICK it!
uh ONE-2-3; ONE [That’s the TICKet!]
then ONE-2-3; ONE
and ONE-2-3; ONE
then ONE-2-3; ONE [See, you’ll LICK it!]
© Daniel J Ricketts 26 Nov 2002
Feet-Shuffling
Do cross-overs make you perturbed?
Your rhythm was somewhat disturbed.
But IF you don’t like it,
I’ll just take a hike; it
is fine for my tongue to be curbed!
© Daniel J Ricketts 19 Nov 2002
. . . or this one?
Limerick Lesson for LorII
uh ONE-2-3; ONE-2-3; KICK it!
uh ONE-2-3; ONE [That’s the TICKet!]
then ONE-2-3; ONE
and ONE-2-3; ONE
then ONE-2-3; ONE [See, you’ll LICK it!]
© Daniel J Ricketts 26 Nov 2002
Tee hee!
Don't remember the first one , but I DO so remember the second!
For anyone who doesn't know -
Limerick Lesson for LorII
uh ONE-2-3; ONE-2-3; KICK it!
uh ONE-2-3; ONE [That’s the TICKet!]
then ONE-2-3; ONE
and ONE-2-3; ONE
then ONE-2-3; ONE [See, you’ll LICK it!]
© Daniel J Ricketts 26 Nov 2002
The CAPPED words are the STRESSES.....
A very helpful lesson Daniel!
Cheers!
~Cleo :dance:
From Jox (writing as RL)
I have absolutly no idea how you have all made these Limericks. I have never seen a clean Limerick before and have known none. They are almost always obscene (ribald is a very polite way of putting it).
Typical limericks start with such things as
The boy stood on the burning deck,
Playing a game of cricket...
(not mine - a traditional one. Can anyone finish it?)
I cannot think of many others I know that might not offend with their levels of obscenity but I have written some (deliberatly bad ones - Limericks are always kitsch) and, if I find them, will post.
Regards, Rick Lime.
I have absolutly no idea how you have all made these Limericks. I have never seen a clean Limerick before and have known none. They are almost always obscene (ribald is a very polite way of putting it).
Typical limericks start with such things as
The boy stood on the burning deck,
Playing a game of cricket...
(not mine - a traditional one. Can anyone finish it?)
I cannot think of many others I know that might not offend with their levels of obscenity but I have written some (deliberatly bad ones - Limericks are always kitsch) and, if I find them, will post.
Regards, Rick Lime.
Well, it seems that your mind needs some refreshing then, my friend. Let me give you some more:
About Rain
It's easy to write about rain;
it’s gentle, and softens your brain.
You think that it’s fickle?
Well, just let it trickle.
And soon . . . see, it's coming again!
© Daniel J Ricketts 26 Oct 2002
between time
It's the time in between he’ll remember,
when its lingering flame's but an ember.
Would his stirring it up
but embarrass a pup
who lay curled at the hearth in December?
Yet how wonderf’ly warm there; he feels it.
So must he let it die to conceal it?
Stirring memories there
seems to flay his heart bare.
O, the bleeding! What force could congeal it?
© Daniel J Ricketts 12 Feb 2003
“I Don’t Give a Ducat!”
The Limerick Cops just may buck it.
I'll hand them a lemon, "Go suck it!
Already your face
is quite a disgrace.
You tell me I can't? I'll just duck it!"
© Daniel J Ricketts 29 Jan 2003
Jest a Muddy Road Ahead
Next month they start fixing my eyes;
right now there are clouds in my skies
even when it's quite clear.
Resolution is near,
so for now I'll just read through the sighs.
But reading at length bogs me down;
I often end up with a frown.
Some tire of my humor.
Have you heard the rumor?
"He's really no more than a clown."
© Daniel J Ricketts 21 Jan 2003
About Rain
It's easy to write about rain;
it’s gentle, and softens your brain.
You think that it’s fickle?
Well, just let it trickle.
And soon . . . see, it's coming again!
© Daniel J Ricketts 26 Oct 2002
between time
It's the time in between he’ll remember,
when its lingering flame's but an ember.
Would his stirring it up
but embarrass a pup
who lay curled at the hearth in December?
Yet how wonderf’ly warm there; he feels it.
So must he let it die to conceal it?
Stirring memories there
seems to flay his heart bare.
O, the bleeding! What force could congeal it?
© Daniel J Ricketts 12 Feb 2003
“I Don’t Give a Ducat!”
The Limerick Cops just may buck it.
I'll hand them a lemon, "Go suck it!
Already your face
is quite a disgrace.
You tell me I can't? I'll just duck it!"
© Daniel J Ricketts 29 Jan 2003
Jest a Muddy Road Ahead
Next month they start fixing my eyes;
right now there are clouds in my skies
even when it's quite clear.
Resolution is near,
so for now I'll just read through the sighs.
But reading at length bogs me down;
I often end up with a frown.
Some tire of my humor.
Have you heard the rumor?
"He's really no more than a clown."
© Daniel J Ricketts 21 Jan 2003
Daniel, very refreshing, thank you. (Though I cannot read Mr. Scrolley).
But, New Jersey... you are obviously not a filthy-minded Brit like me. Now, this is the sort of ribald limerick we need. None of that clever, clean stuff - almost poetic methinks. This is about as clean as they get. And, remember, must be camp / kitch too!
SALvation - 28 October, 1991 (RL - # 0005(004))
Her father, who was a porter,
Told her she really oughtn't.
But sweet young Sal,
One day met-up with a pal.
And now she's had a daughter.
Regards Rick Lime (aka Jox)
But, New Jersey... you are obviously not a filthy-minded Brit like me. Now, this is the sort of ribald limerick we need. None of that clever, clean stuff - almost poetic methinks. This is about as clean as they get. And, remember, must be camp / kitch too!
SALvation - 28 October, 1991 (RL - # 0005(004))
Her father, who was a porter,
Told her she really oughtn't.
But sweet young Sal,
One day met-up with a pal.
And now she's had a daughter.
Regards Rick Lime (aka Jox)
QUOTE (Jox @ Sep. 16 2003, 07:29)
Daniel, very refreshing, thank you. (Though I cannot read Mr. Scrolley).
But, New Jersey... you are obviously not a filthy-minded Brit like me. Now, this is the sort of ribald limerick we need. None of that clever, clean stuff - almost poetic methinks. This is about as clean as they get. And, remember, must be camp / kitch too!
Thank you, Rick! Please allow me to offer assistance with the one you offer us?
004) SALvation - 28 October, 1991
Her father, who was a porter,
[ Her father, they say, was a porter; ]
Told her she really oughtn't.
[ he told 'er that she hadn't oughta, ]
But sweet young Sal,
[ but his sweet young Sal ]
One day met-up with a pal.
[ met one day with a pal, ]
And now she's had a daughter.
[ and now she herself has a daughter! ]
Regards Rick Lime (aka Jox)[/b]
But, New Jersey... you are obviously not a filthy-minded Brit like me. Now, this is the sort of ribald limerick we need. None of that clever, clean stuff - almost poetic methinks. This is about as clean as they get. And, remember, must be camp / kitch too!
Thank you, Rick! Please allow me to offer assistance with the one you offer us?
004) SALvation - 28 October, 1991
Her father, who was a porter,
[ Her father, they say, was a porter; ]
Told her she really oughtn't.
[ he told 'er that she hadn't oughta, ]
But sweet young Sal,
[ but his sweet young Sal ]
One day met-up with a pal.
[ met one day with a pal, ]
And now she's had a daughter.
[ and now she herself has a daughter! ]
Regards Rick Lime (aka Jox)[/b]
Perhaps if he'd simply besought 'er...
A lass! how it seems that he'd fought 'er!
harrass, kinda sore;
she had wanted far more.
sad attempt at adult-er with daughter
in a sad Light, Daniel
Daniel, Rick has asked me to thank you greatly. He wanted to continue that one but I wouldn't allow it (he's much smuttier than I). Instead I'll present another of his offerings...
© James Oxenholme 2003. I, James Oxenholme, hereby assert and give notice of my right under Section 77 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Law of Wales & England - as recognised by The Berne Convention) to be identified as the author of the following article:
Cross-Flight
by Jox, (writing as RL - # 0005(005))
The pilot was on his first flight,
When, suddenly, he had a terrible fright.
Out on the wing,
An amazing thing...
God, with the Devil on his right!
© James Oxenholme 2003. I, James Oxenholme, hereby assert and give notice of my right under Section 77 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Law of Wales & England - as recognised by The Berne Convention) to be identified as the author of the following article:
Cross-Flight
by Jox, (writing as RL - # 0005(005))
The pilot was on his first flight,
When, suddenly, he had a terrible fright.
Out on the wing,
An amazing thing...
God, with the Devil on his right!
Well, blimey! whoever you are,
-- whether James, Rick, or Jax -- let me spar
‘bout your feet in line two:
( Youreallyhavetotalkfast there, too! )
Need to whittle it down some for par!
teasin' deLightfully, Daniel
-- whether James, Rick, or Jax -- let me spar
‘bout your feet in line two:
( Youreallyhavetotalkfast there, too! )
Need to whittle it down some for par!
teasin' deLightfully, Daniel
Ok there Daniel,
First bash at a limerick. Both guns blazing!!
Fred Higgins, our local Lothario,
When asked by a top impresario,
To take on the part
Of a man with no heart
Refused, saying “Not my scenario”
First bash at a limerick. Both guns blazing!!
Fred Higgins, our local Lothario,
When asked by a top impresario,
To take on the part
Of a man with no heart
Refused, saying “Not my scenario”
Cheerio
Grace
Dear Grace, Jox, Daniel etc etc etc
You all did so well to keep the party clean, then I had to come along and spoil it all, but only if you choose to consider the double meanings !
PRESCIENT PRECEDENCE :detective:
There's a lover man, Casanova,
For whom, easily, a lady falls over :
For answers profs thirst,
As to which one comes first,
Is it the chick, or is it the 'ova ?
Love
Alan :detective:
You all did so well to keep the party clean, then I had to come along and spoil it all, but only if you choose to consider the double meanings !
PRESCIENT PRECEDENCE :detective:
There's a lover man, Casanova,
For whom, easily, a lady falls over :
For answers profs thirst,
As to which one comes first,
Is it the chick, or is it the 'ova ?
Love
Alan :detective:
An Egyptian Lament
The wind here at Thebes is ferocious
It makes grains of sand quite precocious
Whenever it blows
It gets right up my nose
And the smell of the Nile is atrocious.
A.
The wind here at Thebes is ferocious
It makes grains of sand quite precocious
Whenever it blows
It gets right up my nose
And the smell of the Nile is atrocious.
A.
Hi Ak
Hilarious, I LOVE it!!
Great rhymes
Cheers
Grace
Hilarious, I LOVE it!!
Great rhymes
Cheers
Grace
:costume: 
Heyyyyyy these are all great! Well, most of them anyway. They're all entertaining to read.
Just remember the beat:
da Dum da da Dum da da Dum
da Dum da da Dum
da Dum da da Dum
da Dum da da Dum da da Dum.
Sorta like dancing ... one must keep the beat to a certain form of dance and so it is with the limerick, as well. Let's all get together and dance the limerick!! I'll start the music ....
( now ya'll fill in the missing parts)
I LOVE dancing! LOVE the rythms ....
Have a great day, All!!
Athena/Dolly
Hi Dolly - great to see you in the spirit - and welcome to the intellectual enclave of MM.
A great idea - they do this on a radio programme, just becomes more and more hilarious as the obscenity level grows. However, "Jersey" is about the most stumping word which you could have chosen... are you trying to send us mad?? (oops, madder??) (Completely barking, actually).
Well, I have no idea where the last word will come from but I've just about managed one for the end of Line Two...
There once was a man from New Jersey,
Who was painstakingly choosey,
The next two lines are easy but the last - phew!
A great idea - they do this on a radio programme, just becomes more and more hilarious as the obscenity level grows. However, "Jersey" is about the most stumping word which you could have chosen... are you trying to send us mad?? (oops, madder??) (Completely barking, actually).
Well, I have no idea where the last word will come from but I've just about managed one for the end of Line Two...
There once was a man from New Jersey,
Who was painstakingly choosey,
The next two lines are easy but the last - phew!
Dear Jox
Whaddaya mean Phew ! ?
Easy Peasy, I'll let others fill in lines 3 & 4 :
There once was a man from New Jersey, :wall:
Who was painstakingly choosey,
:wall:
Which, you believe it or not, ended up as the Mersey ! :wall:
Love
Alan
Whaddaya mean Phew ! ?
Easy Peasy, I'll let others fill in lines 3 & 4 :
There once was a man from New Jersey, :wall:
Who was painstakingly choosey,
:wall:
Which, you believe it or not, ended up as the Mersey ! :wall:
Love
Alan
Hi Alan,
Trust you to grab the bull by the tail!
I did think of Mersey for l2 but was trying to stay with an American flavour - oops - flavor. (Hence the emphasis on choosey). However, delighted to see you're building a trans-Atlantic link... we just need some water Beatles now to swim twixt the two!
Well, I think we'd now welcome a quick bridging twixt the two ends and then we can develop more of these. Who needs Wordsworth, anyway?
Regards, J
Trust you to grab the bull by the tail!
I did think of Mersey for l2 but was trying to stay with an American flavour - oops - flavor. (Hence the emphasis on choosey). However, delighted to see you're building a trans-Atlantic link... we just need some water Beatles now to swim twixt the two!
Well, I think we'd now welcome a quick bridging twixt the two ends and then we can develop more of these. Who needs Wordsworth, anyway?
Regards, J
Hello Athena,
I had a look at your challenge and racked my brains (not a very long or tedious exercise)
Well I remember seeing films about people from New Jersey and here is my offering in the vernacular (a little cheat eh ??)
P.S I added Fedex to my store of knowledge via American films. See you never can tell when things will come in handy
All knowledge is good knowledge, or not as the case may be!
Cheery bye
Grace
I had a look at your challenge and racked my brains (not a very long or tedious exercise)
Well I remember seeing films about people from New Jersey and here is my offering in the vernacular (a little cheat eh ??)
There was a young man from Noo Joisey
Who complained that his neighbours were noisy
So they bound him with tape
So he couldn't escape
And sent him by Fedex to Boise.
Who complained that his neighbours were noisy
So they bound him with tape
So he couldn't escape
And sent him by Fedex to Boise.
P.S I added Fedex to my store of knowledge via American films. See you never can tell when things will come in handy
All knowledge is good knowledge, or not as the case may be!
Cheery bye
Grace
QUOTE (Cybele @ Oct. 06 2003, 11:02)
Hello Athena,
I had a look at your challenge and racked my brains (not a very long or tedious exercise)
Well I remember seeing films about people from New Jersey and here is my offering in the vernacular (a little cheat eh ??)
P.S I added Fedex to my store of knowledge via American films. See you never can tell when things will come in handy
All knowledge is good knowledge, or not as the case may be!
Cheery bye
Grace
I had a look at your challenge and racked my brains (not a very long or tedious exercise)
Well I remember seeing films about people from New Jersey and here is my offering in the vernacular (a little cheat eh ??)
The was a young man from Noo Joisey
Who complained that his neighbours were noisy
So they bound him with tape
So he couldn't escape
And sent him by Fedex to Boise.
Who complained that his neighbours were noisy
So they bound him with tape
So he couldn't escape
And sent him by Fedex to Boise.
P.S I added Fedex to my store of knowledge via American films. See you never can tell when things will come in handy
All knowledge is good knowledge, or not as the case may be!
Cheery bye
Grace
Now THAT's funny!
:pharoah2 :smart:
Heyyyyyyyyyy Grace!
Yippie! What you did is so clever and funny and exactly correct!! I really hadn't thought out how we were to rhyme with Jersey!
Actually, I should have told everyone that anything could be exchanged for the words that I used, but the BEAT is what is the all important factor with limericks.
There's already been such excellent instruction in this forum; I simply thought one more from a new source might "click" something in the brains of those writers who had still not quite gotten the connection. Over the last few years I've read so many marvelous limericks, but I've also read more than my share of those written by people who thought they'd gotten it and could do it, but in reality, they hadn't.
Gracie, you're a sweetie and a creative one at that. You took my exact words and made a minor change that changed the entire ability of a person to write a limerick with that beginning! Super! I'm so happy you're on MY team!
I can plainly see from your other poetic entrys here in the MM, that you have a marvelous ear and talent for writing and dancing to different tunes. Perhaps you could write the beginning line of another limerick with the challenge to all of us to finish it in the correct dance rhythm?
Blessings to all,
Dolly
Yippie! What you did is so clever and funny and exactly correct!! I really hadn't thought out how we were to rhyme with Jersey!
Actually, I should have told everyone that anything could be exchanged for the words that I used, but the BEAT is what is the all important factor with limericks.
There's already been such excellent instruction in this forum; I simply thought one more from a new source might "click" something in the brains of those writers who had still not quite gotten the connection. Over the last few years I've read so many marvelous limericks, but I've also read more than my share of those written by people who thought they'd gotten it and could do it, but in reality, they hadn't.
Gracie, you're a sweetie and a creative one at that. You took my exact words and made a minor change that changed the entire ability of a person to write a limerick with that beginning! Super! I'm so happy you're on MY team!
I can plainly see from your other poetic entrys here in the MM, that you have a marvelous ear and talent for writing and dancing to different tunes. Perhaps you could write the beginning line of another limerick with the challenge to all of us to finish it in the correct dance rhythm?
Blessings to all,
Dolly
Dear Athena, and all who (do not ?) relish a challenge,
Back up this thread Jox set a challenge, and I answered it thus :
There once was a man from New Jersey, :wall:
Who was painstakingly choosey,
:wall:
Which, you believe it or not, ended up as the Mersey ! :wall:
But no one, and I mean but NO one, has filled in the pre-punchlines !
Looks like I'll have to do it myself :
There once was a man from New Jersey,
Who was so painstakingly choosey,
Which river, Thames, the Nile, Seine,
Volga, Amazon, Danube or Rhein ?
Choose ! Believe it or not, he ended up with the Mersey ! :wall:
As they say in Liverpool, Beat That !
Love
Alan
Back up this thread Jox set a challenge, and I answered it thus :
There once was a man from New Jersey, :wall:
Who was painstakingly choosey,
:wall:
Which, you believe it or not, ended up as the Mersey ! :wall:
But no one, and I mean but NO one, has filled in the pre-punchlines !
Looks like I'll have to do it myself :
There once was a man from New Jersey,
Who was so painstakingly choosey,
Which river, Thames, the Nile, Seine,
Volga, Amazon, Danube or Rhein ?
Choose ! Believe it or not, he ended up with the Mersey ! :wall:
As they say in Liverpool, Beat That !
Love
Alan
Ha, ha, ha, Alan!
Very cute!
Thanks so much for finishing the Limerick. However, the rhymes for Jersey are not great, but I gave you a much too difficult word to play with, so it's myyyyy fault!
Thank you for finishing the poem, though. The meter ain't poifect, but we're all in a learning mode here, my friend. Thanks again!
Blessings,
Athena/Dolly
Very cute!
Thanks so much for finishing the Limerick. However, the rhymes for Jersey are not great, but I gave you a much too difficult word to play with, so it's myyyyy fault!
Thank you for finishing the poem, though. The meter ain't poifect, but we're all in a learning mode here, my friend. Thanks again!
Blessings,
Athena/Dolly
OK, Well it's time to start another in this intellects' paradise...
There once was a girl with little luck
please continue... careful now (The skill is being almost obscene but avoiding it - too easy just to be too obvious)!
J.
There once was a girl with little luck
please continue... careful now (The skill is being almost obscene but avoiding it - too easy just to be too obvious)!
J.
Grace! Wonderful stuff - though the accent did confuse me but as the folks in the US like it you must have been spot on... I wouldn't dare to try - so especially well done.
Inspired by your poem, I offer another... (Virtually stolen your first line - thanks.
There was a young cow called Moo Jersey,
Who ate too much grass and became woozy.
So they fed her with grapes,
Till she couldn’t lactate:
Just sat in a field feeling snoozy!
Tatty Bye!
Inspired by your poem, I offer another... (Virtually stolen your first line - thanks.
There was a young cow called Moo Jersey,
Who ate too much grass and became woozy.
So they fed her with grapes,
Till she couldn’t lactate:
Just sat in a field feeling snoozy!
Tatty Bye!
Wotcha James,
NOW you are getting it
There was a young cow called Moo Jersey,
Who ate too much grass and became woozy.
So they fed her with grapes,
Till she couldn’t lactate:
Just sat in a field feeling snoozy!
Great except that the first and second lines are one beat too long.
Try
There once was a cow called Moo Jersey
Who ate too much grass and was woozy
TTFN
Grace
NOW you are getting it
There was a young cow called Moo Jersey,
Who ate too much grass and became woozy.
So they fed her with grapes,
Till she couldn’t lactate:
Just sat in a field feeling snoozy!
Great except that the first and second lines are one beat too long.
Try
There once was a cow called Moo Jersey
Who ate too much grass and was woozy
TTFN
Grace
Hello, Grace
Thank you very much. I might sound ungrateful but I'm not...
You should see my protesting against form poems. To me a Limerick is anything which has about five lines, is humorous, preferably risque (at least) and roughly sounds right. I do not really do precision. Just because an original form was X does not mean we cannot have variations. (What’s ok for Elgar... - daft joke)
I do appreciate education (I ought to) and I am sure you are 100% right. Your poems are some of the best on MM and, if I would listen to anyone it would be you... but I don't do precision.
I've written a few form poems - a triolet, a haiku or two, a haiku cycle and quite a few Limericks. But I suppose I see form as a rough shape on which to hang some words. It offers guidance when needed but if the form tries to take over the words, one should jettison the form, not the words.
Many excellent poets on here are very well-versed (!) in form writing and I admire their efforts and many successes. Can I do it? Probably not - and certainly not to their (including your) standards. Do I want to? Absolutely not.
I am not a good poet - I write only for "fun" - though quite a lot of my poetry (written by TC) is dark and miserable. I see Limericks as a way to escape that - hence my writer is RL (Rick Lime - gedditt?).
What I think would destroy poetry writing for me is having to carefully count syllables, meter systems and so on (when I am critting others‘ poems I never consider any of this at all). However, when writing, I do, sometimes, bear in mind an approximate syllable count so the thing remains roughly in kilter. I have no interest really in AAabbaBBaacX - just leaves me thinking Why? I know the answer, of course: Because many good poets produce excellent poetry by using such forms - but I’ll leave that to them.
The poem I “enjoyed” writing most in the last couple of years is “A Blacker Side of Dark” - it is on MM in Socrates (please take a look - you will be horrified - not really a poem at all, I think you might say). It is one of those depressing pieces by TC which I mentioned - but it partially expresses my view of the World.
By contrast, I wrote a triolet for the competition (won by Michelle with a beautiful poem). Inspired by the three candles my concerned The Holy Trinity of God. I was playing the form game. It was interesting and I genuinely did my best. I was, though, alarmed when one kind critic took it to mean I was a good Christian, as shown by my religious poem. I am about as devout an atheist as you will ever meet - indeed, I used to be quite assertive and militant in my opposition to religions (well we all have to be firebrand about something in our youths).
I now respect people who are religious - well, most anyway - and I felt I had deceived the reader somewhat. I am proud of that triolet as a technical piece of cleverly sticking to form; I am not in the least proud of what it conveyed... it was simply an intellectual challenge to me. That’s the point, Grace (and anyone else still reading!) I have a go at form poems but they do become that intellectual puzzle. (I once did a series of IQ tests to try to get into an organisation and writing the triolet was something like that).
When I simply write a poem then edit it for brevity, clarity, technical errors etc it is far more likely to say what I mean; I am not playing games. Limericks are always games, so I don’t much mind. My Haiku Cycle (in the Haiku section in this forum) is the one exception - I did use a form to say what I meant... another black message, I’m afraid.
So why am I writing in the poetic education section? I suppose that, like you, I too wish to offer education. But mine is more anarchic. I am trying to say “Hey - look - form is that rough shape. Take it, if you wish, then do your own thing round it”.
Finally, Grace, I am very grateful for your raising this point. I tried to get it off my chest in my “A Blacker Shade of Dark” preamble, using satire but you have given me the opportunity to use direct prose. I hope you don’t mind and please do keep on educating - education is excellent but sometimes we have to choose which course to study.
Best wishes, thanks again, J.
Thank you very much. I might sound ungrateful but I'm not...
You should see my protesting against form poems. To me a Limerick is anything which has about five lines, is humorous, preferably risque (at least) and roughly sounds right. I do not really do precision. Just because an original form was X does not mean we cannot have variations. (What’s ok for Elgar... - daft joke)
I do appreciate education (I ought to) and I am sure you are 100% right. Your poems are some of the best on MM and, if I would listen to anyone it would be you... but I don't do precision.
I've written a few form poems - a triolet, a haiku or two, a haiku cycle and quite a few Limericks. But I suppose I see form as a rough shape on which to hang some words. It offers guidance when needed but if the form tries to take over the words, one should jettison the form, not the words.
Many excellent poets on here are very well-versed (!) in form writing and I admire their efforts and many successes. Can I do it? Probably not - and certainly not to their (including your) standards. Do I want to? Absolutely not.
I am not a good poet - I write only for "fun" - though quite a lot of my poetry (written by TC) is dark and miserable. I see Limericks as a way to escape that - hence my writer is RL (Rick Lime - gedditt?).
What I think would destroy poetry writing for me is having to carefully count syllables, meter systems and so on (when I am critting others‘ poems I never consider any of this at all). However, when writing, I do, sometimes, bear in mind an approximate syllable count so the thing remains roughly in kilter. I have no interest really in AAabbaBBaacX - just leaves me thinking Why? I know the answer, of course: Because many good poets produce excellent poetry by using such forms - but I’ll leave that to them.
The poem I “enjoyed” writing most in the last couple of years is “A Blacker Side of Dark” - it is on MM in Socrates (please take a look - you will be horrified - not really a poem at all, I think you might say). It is one of those depressing pieces by TC which I mentioned - but it partially expresses my view of the World.
By contrast, I wrote a triolet for the competition (won by Michelle with a beautiful poem). Inspired by the three candles my concerned The Holy Trinity of God. I was playing the form game. It was interesting and I genuinely did my best. I was, though, alarmed when one kind critic took it to mean I was a good Christian, as shown by my religious poem. I am about as devout an atheist as you will ever meet - indeed, I used to be quite assertive and militant in my opposition to religions (well we all have to be firebrand about something in our youths).
I now respect people who are religious - well, most anyway - and I felt I had deceived the reader somewhat. I am proud of that triolet as a technical piece of cleverly sticking to form; I am not in the least proud of what it conveyed... it was simply an intellectual challenge to me. That’s the point, Grace (and anyone else still reading!) I have a go at form poems but they do become that intellectual puzzle. (I once did a series of IQ tests to try to get into an organisation and writing the triolet was something like that).
When I simply write a poem then edit it for brevity, clarity, technical errors etc it is far more likely to say what I mean; I am not playing games. Limericks are always games, so I don’t much mind. My Haiku Cycle (in the Haiku section in this forum) is the one exception - I did use a form to say what I meant... another black message, I’m afraid.
So why am I writing in the poetic education section? I suppose that, like you, I too wish to offer education. But mine is more anarchic. I am trying to say “Hey - look - form is that rough shape. Take it, if you wish, then do your own thing round it”.
Finally, Grace, I am very grateful for your raising this point. I tried to get it off my chest in my “A Blacker Shade of Dark” preamble, using satire but you have given me the opportunity to use direct prose. I hope you don’t mind and please do keep on educating - education is excellent but sometimes we have to choose which course to study.
Best wishes, thanks again, J.
Yes, yes, yes! Good work! Thanks for pointing out the extra beat, Grace. If we tried to dance the waltze with a one-two-three-four beat instead of the correct one-two-three ... well, we'd be tromping all over our partner's feet! Yipes! 
Limericks can be tricky, but not beyond our ability to conquer! You're right, John, about the almost bawdy/obscene, but not quite. At least not on our website as we're open to all ages.
Thanks for continuing to work on these wee poems. Practice makes perfect!
Trying to learn,
Blessings,
Dolly
Limericks can be tricky, but not beyond our ability to conquer! You're right, John, about the almost bawdy/obscene, but not quite. At least not on our website as we're open to all ages.
Thanks for continuing to work on these wee poems. Practice makes perfect!
Trying to learn,
Blessings,
Dolly
Hi Dolly,
I think if anyone saw what I wrote I was carefully urging people not to take an obscene line. I did point out that a Limerick was clever when being suggestive rather than overt. Like you, I would not want (or, I suppose, allow) anything obscene on here. That does not mean that we should not be witty - the best Limericks are actually allegorical. Children can see one thing; adults another.
Let me just re-join my previous posting... practice makes perfect - or does it dim creativity? Are not some of the most creative things novel? And the new is, ipso facto, not something that has been practised a great deal.
Yours in clean Moo-d, J
I think if anyone saw what I wrote I was carefully urging people not to take an obscene line. I did point out that a Limerick was clever when being suggestive rather than overt. Like you, I would not want (or, I suppose, allow) anything obscene on here. That does not mean that we should not be witty - the best Limericks are actually allegorical. Children can see one thing; adults another.
Let me just re-join my previous posting... practice makes perfect - or does it dim creativity? Are not some of the most creative things novel? And the new is, ipso facto, not something that has been practised a great deal.
Yours in clean Moo-d, J
Hi John,
I read your retort to Grace's attempt at pointing out the extra beat in your limericks. Thank you for doing that as it helps me to understand you a wee bit better.
I would say that you may not want to participate in the form poem educational pages as they are simply not your thing. Not saying you shouldn't if you indeed wish to continue, only pointing out that "If at first you don't succeed, perhaps sky diving is not for you."
However you choose to write and share your poetry, John, I enjoy most of it and will no doubt continue to as most others in here. But, being as how this segment of this forum is for TEACHING limericks, it's up to one of us to help the other on to perfection, see what I mean?
Thanks, John, I KNEW you'd understand this (birthday) woman! LOL
Trying to learn,
Blessings,
Athena/Dolly
I read your retort to Grace's attempt at pointing out the extra beat in your limericks. Thank you for doing that as it helps me to understand you a wee bit better.
I would say that you may not want to participate in the form poem educational pages as they are simply not your thing. Not saying you shouldn't if you indeed wish to continue, only pointing out that "If at first you don't succeed, perhaps sky diving is not for you."
However you choose to write and share your poetry, John, I enjoy most of it and will no doubt continue to as most others in here. But, being as how this segment of this forum is for TEACHING limericks, it's up to one of us to help the other on to perfection, see what I mean?
Thanks, John, I KNEW you'd understand this (birthday) woman! LOL
Trying to learn,
Blessings,
Athena/Dolly
Hi Dolly,
A birthday? Well, very many happy returns! I hope you have a most enjoyable week.
Now, my argument is this... that a Limerick does not have to be as precise as you and Grace wish. If Beethoven had kept to the symphony structure which he inherited it we would have had no Choral Symphony. He did write symphonies but these developed the original form and ushered in the change from classical music to romantic.
You mentioned sky diving (yikes! - you're right not for me) - well sky diving today has many different aspects than when it was first developed. If the argument which you are advancing held sway then it would have been frozen in one style only.
In the haiku I offered a cycle which was a different development to the haiku structure (not my clever idea, I add hastily!) The poems I have posted in here are Limerick based but may miss the odd syllable or beat, etc. My argument is that, unless we are to ossify Limericks in simply their classic style then (like symphonies, haikus and sky diving) we need to be freer to develop the structure around them, I do believe that is as much an educational message about Limericks as is the desire to freeze them in one very strict style.
Yours in debate, J.
PS Enjoy the cake!
A birthday? Well, very many happy returns! I hope you have a most enjoyable week.
Now, my argument is this... that a Limerick does not have to be as precise as you and Grace wish. If Beethoven had kept to the symphony structure which he inherited it we would have had no Choral Symphony. He did write symphonies but these developed the original form and ushered in the change from classical music to romantic.
You mentioned sky diving (yikes! - you're right not for me) - well sky diving today has many different aspects than when it was first developed. If the argument which you are advancing held sway then it would have been frozen in one style only.
In the haiku I offered a cycle which was a different development to the haiku structure (not my clever idea, I add hastily!) The poems I have posted in here are Limerick based but may miss the odd syllable or beat, etc. My argument is that, unless we are to ossify Limericks in simply their classic style then (like symphonies, haikus and sky diving) we need to be freer to develop the structure around them, I do believe that is as much an educational message about Limericks as is the desire to freeze them in one very strict style.
Yours in debate, J.
PS Enjoy the cake!
Ahhhhhhhh my dear talented friend, John .. uh ... James?
Although Shakespeare said, "...... a rose by any other name would smell the same" it isn't so with form poems. If the stress count is not as demonstrated here, the limerick would be called by another name.
Once again, I defer to the dance floor: If one attempted to dance the waltze with 1,2,3,4 beat, one would need to call it by another name, perhaps the rhumba. One could certainly NOT dance the rhumba with a 1,2,3, beat or the hips would be swaying one way while the foot went another way which could cause an accident. Right?
So it is in FORM poetry. Although I appreciate your enjoyment for forms of poetry with NONE or very little structure, still there is a strong case for certain specific types of poetry and their place in our wide world of poetry.
However, free-form is not a haiku, a tetractys is not a limerick, a cinquain is not a nonet or even a sonet or villanelle, but each has their very own style, from which there can be no deviation, and yet they have their place in poetry.
If in this EDUCATIONAL forum the people were not being encouraged to practice a correct style for a specific form of poetry, we'd be remiss in having this forum at all. However, I repeat, you're strongly encouraged to write the poetry in the way that is pleasing unto you, John, but if you wish to post it in the EDUCATIONAL forum, and it has errors, one of us is duty-bound to correct it. I trust you agree ..?
With that said, my good man, I bid thee adieu fr the night as my eyelids are drooping. It's almost 4:00 in the morning here! Yipes!
Oh, and thank you very much for the natal day greetings!
Blessings,
Dolly
Although Shakespeare said, "...... a rose by any other name would smell the same" it isn't so with form poems. If the stress count is not as demonstrated here, the limerick would be called by another name.
Once again, I defer to the dance floor: If one attempted to dance the waltze with 1,2,3,4 beat, one would need to call it by another name, perhaps the rhumba. One could certainly NOT dance the rhumba with a 1,2,3, beat or the hips would be swaying one way while the foot went another way which could cause an accident. Right?
So it is in FORM poetry. Although I appreciate your enjoyment for forms of poetry with NONE or very little structure, still there is a strong case for certain specific types of poetry and their place in our wide world of poetry.
However, free-form is not a haiku, a tetractys is not a limerick, a cinquain is not a nonet or even a sonet or villanelle, but each has their very own style, from which there can be no deviation, and yet they have their place in poetry.
If in this EDUCATIONAL forum the people were not being encouraged to practice a correct style for a specific form of poetry, we'd be remiss in having this forum at all. However, I repeat, you're strongly encouraged to write the poetry in the way that is pleasing unto you, John, but if you wish to post it in the EDUCATIONAL forum, and it has errors, one of us is duty-bound to correct it. I trust you agree ..?
With that said, my good man, I bid thee adieu fr the night as my eyelids are drooping. It's almost 4:00 in the morning here! Yipes!
Oh, and thank you very much for the natal day greetings!
Blessings,
Dolly
Hello James,
It seems I have now got Athena confused into calling you John
Sorry JAMES ???
Hello, Grace
Thank you very much. I might sound ungrateful but I'm not...
No gratitude expected here James, we are all here to learn and grow aren't we? To share ideas and thoughts on the written word whether it be poetry or prose
You should see my protesting against form poems. To me a Limerick is anything which has about five lines, is humorous, preferably risque (at least) and roughly sounds right. I do not really do precision. Just because an original form was X does not mean we cannot have variations. (What’s ok for Elgar... - daft joke)
Whilst I agree that most limericks were written in a risque mode James, I don't agree that you can make them sound "roughly right". The whole point of the limerick is its sing song sound and if it doesn't follow that pattern it just jars and leaves the reader bewildered. They were expecting a tried and trusted form and suddenly that is not available. How they supposed to read a sing song verse that doesn't sing ??? ???
I do appreciate education (I ought to) and I am sure you are 100% right. Your poems are some of the best on MM and, if I would listen to anyone it would be you... but I don't do precision.
While I realise James, that you are a story teller and not a poet, surely any disciplines learned here can only help to develop the use of words to improve our writing - whether that is poetry or prose. ( By the way, thank you for the compliment)
I've written a few form poems - a triolet, a haiku or two, a haiku cycle and quite a few Limericks. But I suppose I see form as a rough shape on which to hang some words. It offers guidance when needed but if the form tries to take over the words, one should jettison the form, not the words.
Basically James, I agree with you here. I am not a great believer in trochees and pentateuch and scansion and all those restraining rules. I believe you should write from the heart. Having said that, you have to consider the fact that you want people to read and understand what you are talking about. With that in mind surely, it is better to try to reach the needs of your audience and not follow your own set of rules entirely?
Many excellent poets on here are very well-versed (!) in form writing and I admire their efforts and many successes. Can I do it? Probably not - and certainly not to their (including your) standards. Do I want to? Absolutely not.
Why not give it a try?
I am not a good poet - I write only for "fun" - though quite a lot of my poetry (written by TC) is dark and miserable. I see Limericks as a way to escape that - hence my writer is RL (Rick Lime - gedditt?).
There will always be a place for dark, miserable poetry (witness Simon Armitage) Some of his work has a terrible beauty.
What I think would destroy poetry writing for me is having to carefully count syllables, meter systems and so on (when I am critting others‘ poems I never consider any of this at all). However, when writing, I do, sometimes, bear in mind an approximate syllable count so the thing remains roughly in kilter. I have no interest really in AAabbaBBaacX - just leaves me thinking Why? I know the answer, of course: Because many good poets produce excellent poetry by using such forms - but I’ll leave that to them.
I agree entirely here James, but NOT with the limerick. It is it's own specific form.
The poem I “enjoyed” writing most in the last couple of years is “A Blacker Side of Dark” - it is on MM in Socrates (please take a look - you will be horrified - not really a poem at all, I think you might say). It is one of those depressing pieces by TC which I mentioned - but it partially expresses my view of the World.
Socrates my next stop James, haven't been there yet.
By contrast, I wrote a triolet for the competition (won by Michelle with a beautiful poem). Inspired by the three candles my concerned The Holy Trinity of God. I was playing the form game. It was interesting and I genuinely did my best. I was, though, alarmed when one kind critic took it to mean I was a good Christian, as shown by my religious poem. I am about as devout an atheist as you will ever meet - indeed, I used to be quite assertive and militant in my opposition to religions (well we all have to be firebrand about something in our youths).
A very beautiful triolet James, sparking lots of replies!
It is not necessary to be religious to write inspiring pieces. Consider the great artists who painted religious subjects. Some of those were the great hellraisers and hedonists of all time!
I now respect people who are religious - well, most anyway - and I felt I had deceived the reader somewhat. I am proud of that triolet as a technical piece of cleverly sticking to form;
You see James, this remark puzzles me. You were happy to stick to form here, and did it beautifully thereby conquering the triolet once and for all. Why not the Limerick?
I am not in the least proud of what it conveyed... it was simply an intellectual challenge to me. That’s the point, Grace (and anyone else still reading!) I have a go at form poems but they do become that intellectual puzzle. (I once did a series of IQ tests to try to get into an organisation and writing the triolet was something like that).
When I simply write a poem then edit it for brevity, clarity, technical errors etc it is far more likely to say what I mean; I am not playing games. Limericks are always games, so I don’t much mind.
Yes, precisely they are great fun -but only if told correctly.
My Haiku Cycle (in the Haiku section in this forum) is the one exception - I did use a form to say what I meant... another black message, I’m afraid.
See, you did it again with Haiku - but not the Limerick?
So why am I writing in the poetic education section? I suppose that, like you, I too wish to offer education. But mine is more anarchic. I am trying to say “Hey - look - form is that rough shape. Take it, if you wish, then do your own thing round it”.
Finally, Grace, I am very grateful for your raising this point. I tried to get it off my chest in my “A Blacker Shade of Dark” preamble, using satire but you have given me the opportunity to use direct prose. I hope you don’t mind and please do keep on educating - education is excellent but sometimes we have to choose which course to study.
James, here on this very enjoyable site we need all sorts of poetry and prose to discuss and educate us and to stimulate responses in each other. I love our exchanges and alway look forward to seeing that you have added input. Like you James, I am far from expert on any subject, but I know what I like!!
Best wishes, thanks again, J.
Love
Grace
It seems I have now got Athena confused into calling you John
Sorry JAMES ???
Hello, Grace
Thank you very much. I might sound ungrateful but I'm not...
No gratitude expected here James, we are all here to learn and grow aren't we? To share ideas and thoughts on the written word whether it be poetry or prose
You should see my protesting against form poems. To me a Limerick is anything which has about five lines, is humorous, preferably risque (at least) and roughly sounds right. I do not really do precision. Just because an original form was X does not mean we cannot have variations. (What’s ok for Elgar... - daft joke)
Whilst I agree that most limericks were written in a risque mode James, I don't agree that you can make them sound "roughly right". The whole point of the limerick is its sing song sound and if it doesn't follow that pattern it just jars and leaves the reader bewildered. They were expecting a tried and trusted form and suddenly that is not available. How they supposed to read a sing song verse that doesn't sing ??? ???
I do appreciate education (I ought to) and I am sure you are 100% right. Your poems are some of the best on MM and, if I would listen to anyone it would be you... but I don't do precision.
While I realise James, that you are a story teller and not a poet, surely any disciplines learned here can only help to develop the use of words to improve our writing - whether that is poetry or prose. ( By the way, thank you for the compliment)
I've written a few form poems - a triolet, a haiku or two, a haiku cycle and quite a few Limericks. But I suppose I see form as a rough shape on which to hang some words. It offers guidance when needed but if the form tries to take over the words, one should jettison the form, not the words.
Basically James, I agree with you here. I am not a great believer in trochees and pentateuch and scansion and all those restraining rules. I believe you should write from the heart. Having said that, you have to consider the fact that you want people to read and understand what you are talking about. With that in mind surely, it is better to try to reach the needs of your audience and not follow your own set of rules entirely?
Many excellent poets on here are very well-versed (!) in form writing and I admire their efforts and many successes. Can I do it? Probably not - and certainly not to their (including your) standards. Do I want to? Absolutely not.
Why not give it a try?
I am not a good poet - I write only for "fun" - though quite a lot of my poetry (written by TC) is dark and miserable. I see Limericks as a way to escape that - hence my writer is RL (Rick Lime - gedditt?).
There will always be a place for dark, miserable poetry (witness Simon Armitage) Some of his work has a terrible beauty.
What I think would destroy poetry writing for me is having to carefully count syllables, meter systems and so on (when I am critting others‘ poems I never consider any of this at all). However, when writing, I do, sometimes, bear in mind an approximate syllable count so the thing remains roughly in kilter. I have no interest really in AAabbaBBaacX - just leaves me thinking Why? I know the answer, of course: Because many good poets produce excellent poetry by using such forms - but I’ll leave that to them.
I agree entirely here James, but NOT with the limerick. It is it's own specific form.
The poem I “enjoyed” writing most in the last couple of years is “A Blacker Side of Dark” - it is on MM in Socrates (please take a look - you will be horrified - not really a poem at all, I think you might say). It is one of those depressing pieces by TC which I mentioned - but it partially expresses my view of the World.
Socrates my next stop James, haven't been there yet.
By contrast, I wrote a triolet for the competition (won by Michelle with a beautiful poem). Inspired by the three candles my concerned The Holy Trinity of God. I was playing the form game. It was interesting and I genuinely did my best. I was, though, alarmed when one kind critic took it to mean I was a good Christian, as shown by my religious poem. I am about as devout an atheist as you will ever meet - indeed, I used to be quite assertive and militant in my opposition to religions (well we all have to be firebrand about something in our youths).
A very beautiful triolet James, sparking lots of replies!
It is not necessary to be religious to write inspiring pieces. Consider the great artists who painted religious subjects. Some of those were the great hellraisers and hedonists of all time!
I now respect people who are religious - well, most anyway - and I felt I had deceived the reader somewhat. I am proud of that triolet as a technical piece of cleverly sticking to form;
You see James, this remark puzzles me. You were happy to stick to form here, and did it beautifully thereby conquering the triolet once and for all. Why not the Limerick?
I am not in the least proud of what it conveyed... it was simply an intellectual challenge to me. That’s the point, Grace (and anyone else still reading!) I have a go at form poems but they do become that intellectual puzzle. (I once did a series of IQ tests to try to get into an organisation and writing the triolet was something like that).
When I simply write a poem then edit it for brevity, clarity, technical errors etc it is far more likely to say what I mean; I am not playing games. Limericks are always games, so I don’t much mind.
Yes, precisely they are great fun -but only if told correctly.
My Haiku Cycle (in the Haiku section in this forum) is the one exception - I did use a form to say what I meant... another black message, I’m afraid.
See, you did it again with Haiku - but not the Limerick?
So why am I writing in the poetic education section? I suppose that, like you, I too wish to offer education. But mine is more anarchic. I am trying to say “Hey - look - form is that rough shape. Take it, if you wish, then do your own thing round it”.
Finally, Grace, I am very grateful for your raising this point. I tried to get it off my chest in my “A Blacker Shade of Dark” preamble, using satire but you have given me the opportunity to use direct prose. I hope you don’t mind and please do keep on educating - education is excellent but sometimes we have to choose which course to study.
James, here on this very enjoyable site we need all sorts of poetry and prose to discuss and educate us and to stimulate responses in each other. I love our exchanges and alway look forward to seeing that you have added input. Like you James, I am far from expert on any subject, but I know what I like!!
Best wishes, thanks again, J.
Love
Grace
Ahhhhhhhh my dear talented friend, John,
Most kind Dolly; that will be framed!
Although Shakespeare said, "...... a rose by any other name would smell the same" it isn't so with form poems. If the stress count is not as demonstrated here, the limerick would be called by another name.
I disagree. That is absolutism. There are, for example, various types of sonnet. That is because people have contributed differences over the years. These mavericks were, no doubt, literary heretics at first... all changes have to start from somewhere. I have heard hundreds (thousands?) of Limericks over the years. I have not kept a note of which conform to the specific classical definition but I know that some had very long lines, some short etc. They are variations of the theme, rather than being precise fits to the one classical definition. A dog is not another creature because it has no tail or three legs. We can say that. providing something X exhibits most of the features of some group Y then it is a variant member of Y. It is very hard to think of many things in life which have totally rigid, unbending prescriptive definitions. The Limericks I have heard over the years will have amongst them many variants. However, they all share the pattern of a Limerick; they do not all merit a new definition to be established. So something that is very close to the classic definition may be called a Limerick because to classify it otherwise would be illogical.
Once again, I defer to the dance floor: If one attempted to dance the waltze with 1,2,3,4 beat, one would need to call it by another name, perhaps the rhumba. One could certainly NOT dance the rhumba with a 1,2,3, beat or the hips would be swaying one way while the foot went another way which could cause an accident. Right?
Sorry, I know nothing about dancing - save discos and pogo-ing to punk in the 1970s and head banging to Status Quo (which may explain a great deal). I am afraid I simply cannot argue here - I so not know what a rumba is (though I think it Latin American dance?). However, the image of dancers flying everywhere is delightful - why don’t you write a poem about it? - Alan would be so pleased! Anyway, sorry I’ll have to pass on that example.
So it is in FORM poetry. Although I appreciate your enjoyment for forms of poetry with NONE or very little structure, still there is a strong case for certain specific types of poetry and their place in our wide world of poetry.
Oh I do not disagree - in fact I made this very point, I said that good poets could write excellent poetry using forms. I would not “legislate” against forms - besides their absence would give me nothing to grump about. I’m a liberal; people should do as they wish if it doesn’t hurt others is my belief. If people wish to write form poems good luck to them - I’ve even done it myself and had fun. No argument here at all. (Nevertheless, that does not mean that variations on forms should be frowned upon). Plurality in literature is as healthy as plurality in most other spheres in life.
However, free-form is not a haiku, a tetractys is not a limerick, a cinquain is not a nonet or even a sonet or villanelle, but each has their very own style, from which there can be no deviation, and yet they have their place in poetry.
I don’t think I claimed that free-form was a haiku. Just checked, nope I didn’t say that. In fact I didn’t claim any of those things were each other as a matter of fact. Moreover, I am afraid that you are wrong that there can be no variations. A Shakespearian sonnet is different from an Italian; a haiku cycle different from a stand-alone haiku. So someone, somewhere, sometime has been busy making variations. These have stuck with us. However, other variations may be out there but unrecognised, as yet, by affectionados.
If in this EDUCATIONAL forum the people were not being encouraged to practice a correct style for a specific form of poetry, we'd be remiss in having this forum at all. However, I repeat, you're strongly encouraged to write the poetry in the way that is pleasing unto you, John, but if you wish to post it in the EDUCATIONAL forum, and it has errors, one of us is duty-bound to correct it. I trust you agree ..?
I do not agree with the terms “errors” nor "correct”. I would say “variations“ and “orthodox” respectivly. Nevertheless, I do agree that you are most welcome and most kind to offer whatever guidance you see fit. This is very helpful and I did not object to it. I merely thanked Grace but said that I had the view xxx (which is above in great detail).
With that said, my good man, I bid thee adieu fr the night as my eyelids are drooping. It's almost 4:00 in the morning here! Yipes!
It is most kind of you, Dolly, to spend so much time on this; I do so enjoy a good debate and I think (this being an education forum) people will have learnt a great deal (assuming they are not all asleep!) and can then decide their own take on all this.
Oh, and thank you very much for the natal day greetings!
You are most welcome - hope you enjoy them and are not too tired!
Blessings,
Thank you. Best wishes, to you, too. J.
PS To Grace - I will be answering your posting later or on Thursday / Friday, Grace (I may not be around much tomorrow and possibly not on Thursday either) so thank you, too and I will reply.
Most kind Dolly; that will be framed!
Although Shakespeare said, "...... a rose by any other name would smell the same" it isn't so with form poems. If the stress count is not as demonstrated here, the limerick would be called by another name.
I disagree. That is absolutism. There are, for example, various types of sonnet. That is because people have contributed differences over the years. These mavericks were, no doubt, literary heretics at first... all changes have to start from somewhere. I have heard hundreds (thousands?) of Limericks over the years. I have not kept a note of which conform to the specific classical definition but I know that some had very long lines, some short etc. They are variations of the theme, rather than being precise fits to the one classical definition. A dog is not another creature because it has no tail or three legs. We can say that. providing something X exhibits most of the features of some group Y then it is a variant member of Y. It is very hard to think of many things in life which have totally rigid, unbending prescriptive definitions. The Limericks I have heard over the years will have amongst them many variants. However, they all share the pattern of a Limerick; they do not all merit a new definition to be established. So something that is very close to the classic definition may be called a Limerick because to classify it otherwise would be illogical.
Once again, I defer to the dance floor: If one attempted to dance the waltze with 1,2,3,4 beat, one would need to call it by another name, perhaps the rhumba. One could certainly NOT dance the rhumba with a 1,2,3, beat or the hips would be swaying one way while the foot went another way which could cause an accident. Right?
Sorry, I know nothing about dancing - save discos and pogo-ing to punk in the 1970s and head banging to Status Quo (which may explain a great deal). I am afraid I simply cannot argue here - I so not know what a rumba is (though I think it Latin American dance?). However, the image of dancers flying everywhere is delightful - why don’t you write a poem about it? - Alan would be so pleased! Anyway, sorry I’ll have to pass on that example.
So it is in FORM poetry. Although I appreciate your enjoyment for forms of poetry with NONE or very little structure, still there is a strong case for certain specific types of poetry and their place in our wide world of poetry.
Oh I do not disagree - in fact I made this very point, I said that good poets could write excellent poetry using forms. I would not “legislate” against forms - besides their absence would give me nothing to grump about. I’m a liberal; people should do as they wish if it doesn’t hurt others is my belief. If people wish to write form poems good luck to them - I’ve even done it myself and had fun. No argument here at all. (Nevertheless, that does not mean that variations on forms should be frowned upon). Plurality in literature is as healthy as plurality in most other spheres in life.
However, free-form is not a haiku, a tetractys is not a limerick, a cinquain is not a nonet or even a sonet or villanelle, but each has their very own style, from which there can be no deviation, and yet they have their place in poetry.
I don’t think I claimed that free-form was a haiku. Just checked, nope I didn’t say that. In fact I didn’t claim any of those things were each other as a matter of fact. Moreover, I am afraid that you are wrong that there can be no variations. A Shakespearian sonnet is different from an Italian; a haiku cycle different from a stand-alone haiku. So someone, somewhere, sometime has been busy making variations. These have stuck with us. However, other variations may be out there but unrecognised, as yet, by affectionados.
If in this EDUCATIONAL forum the people were not being encouraged to practice a correct style for a specific form of poetry, we'd be remiss in having this forum at all. However, I repeat, you're strongly encouraged to write the poetry in the way that is pleasing unto you, John, but if you wish to post it in the EDUCATIONAL forum, and it has errors, one of us is duty-bound to correct it. I trust you agree ..?
I do not agree with the terms “errors” nor "correct”. I would say “variations“ and “orthodox” respectivly. Nevertheless, I do agree that you are most welcome and most kind to offer whatever guidance you see fit. This is very helpful and I did not object to it. I merely thanked Grace but said that I had the view xxx (which is above in great detail).
With that said, my good man, I bid thee adieu fr the night as my eyelids are drooping. It's almost 4:00 in the morning here! Yipes!
It is most kind of you, Dolly, to spend so much time on this; I do so enjoy a good debate and I think (this being an education forum) people will have learnt a great deal (assuming they are not all asleep!) and can then decide their own take on all this.
Oh, and thank you very much for the natal day greetings!
You are most welcome - hope you enjoy them and are not too tired!
Blessings,
Thank you. Best wishes, to you, too. J.
PS To Grace - I will be answering your posting later or on Thursday / Friday, Grace (I may not be around much tomorrow and possibly not on Thursday either) so thank you, too and I will reply.
Well, all I know is that limerick most definitely has a BEAT to it.
I would say it has 8 - 9 syllables, "There once was a man from Nantucket"..and the stresses are quite obvious in this first line.
ONCE/MAN/TUCK...
It seems the trick lies in the 3rd and 4th lines..which are generally a few syllables shorter.
One I attempted to write and Daniel helped me fix:
Create with ideas you have thought;
that writer's block; you will have fought.
New rhythm is calling!
Though words you'll be mauling,
you'll paint what your mind's image caught.
Do you see the rhythm above? It is in the STRESS words that sync it together (although this one is NOT humerous, so not a good example of limerick)...In the example above, I kept the 8/8/6/6/8 beat with stresses at equal points in each line.
I like a good debate, this thread has been interesting and we should strive to teach/educate the proper forms in this particular forum (since that is Karnak's purpose)...
These debates clearly help define the forms of poetry.
Cheers!
~Cleo :pharoah:
I would say it has 8 - 9 syllables, "There once was a man from Nantucket"..and the stresses are quite obvious in this first line.
ONCE/MAN/TUCK...
It seems the trick lies in the 3rd and 4th lines..which are generally a few syllables shorter.
One I attempted to write and Daniel helped me fix:
Create with ideas you have thought;
that writer's block; you will have fought.
New rhythm is calling!
Though words you'll be mauling,
you'll paint what your mind's image caught.
Do you see the rhythm above? It is in the STRESS words that sync it together (although this one is NOT humerous, so not a good example of limerick)...In the example above, I kept the 8/8/6/6/8 beat with stresses at equal points in each line.
I like a good debate, this thread has been interesting and we should strive to teach/educate the proper forms in this particular forum (since that is Karnak's purpose)...
These debates clearly help define the forms of poetry.
Cheers!
~Cleo :pharoah:
Hi Grace, Dolly & Cleo et al...
Cleo - I think you have the right approach. As you argue, there is flexibility (“I would say it has 8 - 9 syllables”). The BBC (see below) argue that one can go down to seven syllables but the point is flexibility. Indeed, it is actually that flexibility which allows a variety of, as you put it, “the proper forms” in a Limerick
Secondly, I just found this from the BBC... (usual thing I cannot quote the whole article for copyright reasons but here’s the web address for you to see for yourselves). However, this extract does give some structural details...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A218206
(Start of BBC Extract)
Often, lines three and four have an extra syllable at their start. Variations on this theme include the substitution of the final foot of a line to the iamb, a two-syllable foot with the accent on the second. Further substitution in this way can result in the maximum syllable count of
(Before we look at the syllable count please note those words, above... “often” and “variations”.)
1. 9 syllables pause 3 da-da-daah da-da-daah da-da-daah
2. 9 syllables pause 3 da-da-daah da-da-daah da-da-daah
3. 6/7 syllables no pause (da) da-da-daah da-da-daah
4. 6/7 syllables no pause (da) da-da-daah da-da-daah
5. 9 syllables pause 3 da-da-daah da-da-daah da-da-daah
being reduced to a minimum of
1.7 syllables pause 5 da-dah da-da-dah da-daah
2. 7 syllables pause 5 da-dah da-da-dah da-daah
3. 4 syllables pause 2 da-da da-daah
4. 4 syllables pause 2 da-da da-daah
5. 7 syllables pause 5 da-dah da-da-dah da-daa
As the figures indicate, curtailing the 'active' beats of any line results in a corresponding increase in the number of beats' pause between lines.
It is possible to construct a limerick with unmatching a or b lines; it is essential that the overall beat structure remains and that the flow of words allows the lines to be spoken as if they were identical.
(End of BBC extract)
Hence, there are already alternative approaches to Limericks. The version which Dolly offered earlier in this thread - viz: (N.B. the BBC has opted for dah and Dolly for dum - told you this was the intelligent corner of MM!)
1. da Dum da da Dum da da Dum
2. da Dum da da Dum da da Dum
3. da Dum da da Dum
4. da Dum da da Dum
5. da Dum da da Dum da da Dum.
Falls within the two parameters. But, as one can see from the article, providing that the general overall structure of a Limerick is obeyed there is latitude for variations. But am I saying that I trust the BBC more than Dolly? Well, the very fact that the BBC is offering alternatives means that variations do exist in the public domain. So we need not say that the BBC is right or Dolly is; we simply need to acknowledge that different approaches do exist.
Anyway, Grace, Thanks for your reply... here goes...
Whilst I agree that most limericks were written in a risque mode James, I don't agree that you can make them sound "roughly right". The whole point of the limerick is its sing song sound and if it doesn't follow that pattern it just jars and leaves the reader bewildered. They were expecting a tried and trusted form and suddenly that is not available. How they supposed to read a sing song verse that doesn't sing
I thought a “sing song” verse was called a lyric, not a Limerick.
I have never been bewildered by any Limerick which I would call a Limerick (remembering that my definition is much wider than yours). Providing they have the general pattern, are humorous and have the end line being the punch line, they work for me.
On that humorous point - I think I would argue that to be a Limerick a poem must be funny (at present anyway). To fail that test is most certainly without the spirit of the Limerick. However, a poem could easily be very dark sombre and meet all the syllable requirements etc - so it technically would be a Limerick. Another case of the strict technical perspective being erroneous.
While I realise James, that you are a story teller and not a poet, surely any disciplines learned here can only help to develop the use of words to improve our writing - whether that is poetry or prose. ( By the way, thank you for the compliment)
You are welcome for the complement - I did mean it.
I think exposure to other ideas is almost always beneficial but actually learning different techniques is not always helpful. Being aware of tools is one thing because one can then decline to use them. However, actually learning them may cramp style. The only example of this I can think of is Bryan May. He rejected a conventional plectrum in favour of a coin and learnt his guitaring with that. Had he not done so the World would have been deprived of the unique sound of Queen. (Just to explain - a plectrum makes a typical guitar sound but a coin gives the instrument a whole new voice. It was against all teaching to use the guitar like that but May’s achievements are testament to its success). If most children are taught Shakespeare too early it can put them off for life. Better they are allowed to appreciate a wide range of literature then try Shakespeare later if they wish. (By the way, Master Shakespeare broke plenty of rules, too!)
Basically James, I agree with you here. I am not a great believer in trochees and pentateuch and scansion and all those restraining rules. I believe you should write from the heart. Having said that, you have to consider the fact that you want people to read and understand what you are talking about. With that in mind surely, it is better to try to reach the needs of your audience and not follow your own set of rules entirely?
I think the day a poet hears her/his audience fumbling in their bags for their pocket calculators and Little Red Book of Official Poetry Regulations is the day they should take up railway bridge spotting (train spotting clearly being too exciting). Of course all writers who wish to communicate (i.e. virtually all) must have knowledge of their audience and try to reach them. A funny Limerick will do that - one which meets the prescribed definition precisely but unfunny will not.
Many excellent poets on here are very well-versed (! in form writing and I admire their efforts and many successes. Can I do it? Probably not - and certainly not to their (including your) standards. Do I want to? Absolutely not.
Why not give it a try?
Because I don’t wish to, thank you (as I just said). It would take a persuasive argument to convince me). However, rule nothing in and nothing out.
There will always be a place for dark, miserable poetry (witness Simon Armitage) Some of his work has a terrible beauty.
Good point. I would just add, though, that poetry does not have to be in any way beautiful. My favourite poet is Wilfred Owen. His early beautiful poetry is, in my opinion - and that of many of his admirers - awful. His brutal, bloody poetry later is excellent.
I have no interest really in AAabbaBBaacX - just leaves me thinking Why?
I agree entirely here James, but NOT with the limerick. It is it's own specific form.
As I indicated at the top of this reply, it appears that not everyone does agree with sticking to the precise format.
A very beautiful triolet James, sparking lots of replies!
Thank you - and people were most kind.
It is not necessary to be religious to write inspiring pieces. Consider the great artists who painted religious subjects. Some of those were the great hellraisers and hedonists of all time!
An excellent point. Mine, however was slightly different - though I think I made it badly so I will re-work it here...
I am proud of the triolet which I wrote. But I am proud of it as an intellectual solution to a set puzzle. I did not mean to lead anyone on by suggesting I was religious. (When I was a Housemaster in a Roman Catholic school I had to take many assemblies. I never led the prayers nor participated in them; I regarded it as dishonest to do so. A colleague of mine who is a Christian kindly undertook this aspect of assemblies for me). However, the main point I made (badly) was that writing should be so much more than an intellectual jigsaw puzzle with words. Certainly all writing requires us to select words carefully. However, we can use the words and the shape of the writing to achieve the effect we desire. When the shape is rigidly prescribed much of that creativity is denied. This is not the argument for (in poetry) free verse - I have already made that several times. It is the argument for avoiding making recognised forms over-prescriptive. If they encourage and enable writers to shape their work but have freedom around that shape the writer is then able to be far more creative than having to slavishly follow a rigid and precise format. The triolet, for me, was a puzzle exercise. Had I been able to shape round the basic form I would certainly have written it differently. Even then someone suggested imposing the further restriction of a syllable count. That is fine if people enjoy it but I am lost as to why someone would wish to keep setting another whale bone in the corset. If they enjoy it as an intellectual challenge I would actually understand that but, otherwise, I am at a loss to know why these progressively tighter restrictions apply.
Digression: As a footnote to the triolet - I think it is a very odd thing. This is to take nothing from those people who entered the competition - they did very well and, had I not entered myself, I would not be saying this. However, the form seems wasteful of words. Sometimes repetition is good (I critted a poem only tonight which repeated the first line with excellent effect). But to be bound to repeat - why? One could be so much more creative by using new, fresh words, instead of keep re-hashing lines for the sake of it. Here ends the digression.
You see James, this remark puzzles me. You were happy to stick to form here, and did it beautifully thereby conquering the triolet once and for all. Why not the Limerick?
Thank you again, Grace.
I have written Limericks - I have only posted one or two on MM. The Limerick is much better than the triolet in that it does not insist on that repetition - though it is limited to comedy. (Then again - I’d love to see people breaking through with non-comedic Limericks). I can only really repeat these things. I enjoyed writing the triolet as an intellectual / IQ exercise. I enjoy Limericks for a different reason (they’re daft which is fun). But if you read back in my triolet thread I did attack the notion of eight syllables with determination. I conquered the triolet? Well, I appreciate that is the terms in which competitions are set. But that is for fun. I would say that a writer is there to use tools, not to conquer them. I think we just like different calibrations on those tools.
Actually, you say I was “happy to stick to form”. Well, I am sometimes happy to stick to Dolly’s definition of a Limerick - but would hate it imposed on me. I did not have to enter the competition; I chose to. If that eight syllable count had been a requirement I would not have bothered. Does that help?
Yes, precisely they are great fun -but only if told correctly.
This is becoming a circularity methinks. “Correct” in my opinion has latitude. Dolly and yourself insists it does not. An impasse.
My Haiku Cycle (in the Haiku section in this forum) is the one exception - I did use a form to say what I meant... another black message, I’m afraid.
See, you did it again with Haiku - but not the Limerick?
Again, I have written Limericks... most of them unpublishable on here but I think all just about conform to what is understood by a Limerick. Moreover, many have been used to amuse people... though I don’t think they were counting syllables at the time.
James, here on this very enjoyable site we need all sorts of poetry and prose to discuss and educate us and to stimulate responses in each other. I love our exchanges and always look forward to seeing that you have added input. Like you James, I am far from expert on any subject, but I know what I like!!
Amen to that - and, remember, so do the readers / listeners (and the vast majority, outside writers’ circles like this do not know the precise requirements of most forms of literature - so you will not be carted off to the local nick if you sneak in an extra syllable).
We really need a virtual pub if we are to have these long discussions!
Best wishes, thanks again, J.
Cleo - I think you have the right approach. As you argue, there is flexibility (“I would say it has 8 - 9 syllables”). The BBC (see below) argue that one can go down to seven syllables but the point is flexibility. Indeed, it is actually that flexibility which allows a variety of, as you put it, “the proper forms” in a Limerick
Secondly, I just found this from the BBC... (usual thing I cannot quote the whole article for copyright reasons but here’s the web address for you to see for yourselves). However, this extract does give some structural details...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A218206
(Start of BBC Extract)
Often, lines three and four have an extra syllable at their start. Variations on this theme include the substitution of the final foot of a line to the iamb, a two-syllable foot with the accent on the second. Further substitution in this way can result in the maximum syllable count of
(Before we look at the syllable count please note those words, above... “often” and “variations”.)
1. 9 syllables pause 3 da-da-daah da-da-daah da-da-daah
2. 9 syllables pause 3 da-da-daah da-da-daah da-da-daah
3. 6/7 syllables no pause (da) da-da-daah da-da-daah
4. 6/7 syllables no pause (da) da-da-daah da-da-daah
5. 9 syllables pause 3 da-da-daah da-da-daah da-da-daah
being reduced to a minimum of
1.7 syllables pause 5 da-dah da-da-dah da-daah
2. 7 syllables pause 5 da-dah da-da-dah da-daah
3. 4 syllables pause 2 da-da da-daah
4. 4 syllables pause 2 da-da da-daah
5. 7 syllables pause 5 da-dah da-da-dah da-daa
As the figures indicate, curtailing the 'active' beats of any line results in a corresponding increase in the number of beats' pause between lines.
It is possible to construct a limerick with unmatching a or b lines; it is essential that the overall beat structure remains and that the flow of words allows the lines to be spoken as if they were identical.
(End of BBC extract)
Hence, there are already alternative approaches to Limericks. The version which Dolly offered earlier in this thread - viz: (N.B. the BBC has opted for dah and Dolly for dum - told you this was the intelligent corner of MM!)
1. da Dum da da Dum da da Dum
2. da Dum da da Dum da da Dum
3. da Dum da da Dum
4. da Dum da da Dum
5. da Dum da da Dum da da Dum.
Falls within the two parameters. But, as one can see from the article, providing that the general overall structure of a Limerick is obeyed there is latitude for variations. But am I saying that I trust the BBC more than Dolly? Well, the very fact that the BBC is offering alternatives means that variations do exist in the public domain. So we need not say that the BBC is right or Dolly is; we simply need to acknowledge that different approaches do exist.
Anyway, Grace, Thanks for your reply... here goes...
Whilst I agree that most limericks were written in a risque mode James, I don't agree that you can make them sound "roughly right". The whole point of the limerick is its sing song sound and if it doesn't follow that pattern it just jars and leaves the reader bewildered. They were expecting a tried and trusted form and suddenly that is not available. How they supposed to read a sing song verse that doesn't sing
I thought a “sing song” verse was called a lyric, not a Limerick.
I have never been bewildered by any Limerick which I would call a Limerick (remembering that my definition is much wider than yours). Providing they have the general pattern, are humorous and have the end line being the punch line, they work for me.
On that humorous point - I think I would argue that to be a Limerick a poem must be funny (at present anyway). To fail that test is most certainly without the spirit of the Limerick. However, a poem could easily be very dark sombre and meet all the syllable requirements etc - so it technically would be a Limerick. Another case of the strict technical perspective being erroneous.
While I realise James, that you are a story teller and not a poet, surely any disciplines learned here can only help to develop the use of words to improve our writing - whether that is poetry or prose. ( By the way, thank you for the compliment)
You are welcome for the complement - I did mean it.
I think exposure to other ideas is almost always beneficial but actually learning different techniques is not always helpful. Being aware of tools is one thing because one can then decline to use them. However, actually learning them may cramp style. The only example of this I can think of is Bryan May. He rejected a conventional plectrum in favour of a coin and learnt his guitaring with that. Had he not done so the World would have been deprived of the unique sound of Queen. (Just to explain - a plectrum makes a typical guitar sound but a coin gives the instrument a whole new voice. It was against all teaching to use the guitar like that but May’s achievements are testament to its success). If most children are taught Shakespeare too early it can put them off for life. Better they are allowed to appreciate a wide range of literature then try Shakespeare later if they wish. (By the way, Master Shakespeare broke plenty of rules, too!)
Basically James, I agree with you here. I am not a great believer in trochees and pentateuch and scansion and all those restraining rules. I believe you should write from the heart. Having said that, you have to consider the fact that you want people to read and understand what you are talking about. With that in mind surely, it is better to try to reach the needs of your audience and not follow your own set of rules entirely?
I think the day a poet hears her/his audience fumbling in their bags for their pocket calculators and Little Red Book of Official Poetry Regulations is the day they should take up railway bridge spotting (train spotting clearly being too exciting). Of course all writers who wish to communicate (i.e. virtually all) must have knowledge of their audience and try to reach them. A funny Limerick will do that - one which meets the prescribed definition precisely but unfunny will not.
Many excellent poets on here are very well-versed (! in form writing and I admire their efforts and many successes. Can I do it? Probably not - and certainly not to their (including your) standards. Do I want to? Absolutely not.
Why not give it a try?
Because I don’t wish to, thank you (as I just said). It would take a persuasive argument to convince me). However, rule nothing in and nothing out.
There will always be a place for dark, miserable poetry (witness Simon Armitage) Some of his work has a terrible beauty.
Good point. I would just add, though, that poetry does not have to be in any way beautiful. My favourite poet is Wilfred Owen. His early beautiful poetry is, in my opinion - and that of many of his admirers - awful. His brutal, bloody poetry later is excellent.
I have no interest really in AAabbaBBaacX - just leaves me thinking Why?
I agree entirely here James, but NOT with the limerick. It is it's own specific form.
As I indicated at the top of this reply, it appears that not everyone does agree with sticking to the precise format.
A very beautiful triolet James, sparking lots of replies!
Thank you - and people were most kind.
It is not necessary to be religious to write inspiring pieces. Consider the great artists who painted religious subjects. Some of those were the great hellraisers and hedonists of all time!
An excellent point. Mine, however was slightly different - though I think I made it badly so I will re-work it here...
I am proud of the triolet which I wrote. But I am proud of it as an intellectual solution to a set puzzle. I did not mean to lead anyone on by suggesting I was religious. (When I was a Housemaster in a Roman Catholic school I had to take many assemblies. I never led the prayers nor participated in them; I regarded it as dishonest to do so. A colleague of mine who is a Christian kindly undertook this aspect of assemblies for me). However, the main point I made (badly) was that writing should be so much more than an intellectual jigsaw puzzle with words. Certainly all writing requires us to select words carefully. However, we can use the words and the shape of the writing to achieve the effect we desire. When the shape is rigidly prescribed much of that creativity is denied. This is not the argument for (in poetry) free verse - I have already made that several times. It is the argument for avoiding making recognised forms over-prescriptive. If they encourage and enable writers to shape their work but have freedom around that shape the writer is then able to be far more creative than having to slavishly follow a rigid and precise format. The triolet, for me, was a puzzle exercise. Had I been able to shape round the basic form I would certainly have written it differently. Even then someone suggested imposing the further restriction of a syllable count. That is fine if people enjoy it but I am lost as to why someone would wish to keep setting another whale bone in the corset. If they enjoy it as an intellectual challenge I would actually understand that but, otherwise, I am at a loss to know why these progressively tighter restrictions apply.
Digression: As a footnote to the triolet - I think it is a very odd thing. This is to take nothing from those people who entered the competition - they did very well and, had I not entered myself, I would not be saying this. However, the form seems wasteful of words. Sometimes repetition is good (I critted a poem only tonight which repeated the first line with excellent effect). But to be bound to repeat - why? One could be so much more creative by using new, fresh words, instead of keep re-hashing lines for the sake of it. Here ends the digression.
You see James, this remark puzzles me. You were happy to stick to form here, and did it beautifully thereby conquering the triolet once and for all. Why not the Limerick?
Thank you again, Grace.
I have written Limericks - I have only posted one or two on MM. The Limerick is much better than the triolet in that it does not insist on that repetition - though it is limited to comedy. (Then again - I’d love to see people breaking through with non-comedic Limericks). I can only really repeat these things. I enjoyed writing the triolet as an intellectual / IQ exercise. I enjoy Limericks for a different reason (they’re daft which is fun). But if you read back in my triolet thread I did attack the notion of eight syllables with determination. I conquered the triolet? Well, I appreciate that is the terms in which competitions are set. But that is for fun. I would say that a writer is there to use tools, not to conquer them. I think we just like different calibrations on those tools.
Actually, you say I was “happy to stick to form”. Well, I am sometimes happy to stick to Dolly’s definition of a Limerick - but would hate it imposed on me. I did not have to enter the competition; I chose to. If that eight syllable count had been a requirement I would not have bothered. Does that help?
Yes, precisely they are great fun -but only if told correctly.
This is becoming a circularity methinks. “Correct” in my opinion has latitude. Dolly and yourself insists it does not. An impasse.
My Haiku Cycle (in the Haiku section in this forum) is the one exception - I did use a form to say what I meant... another black message, I’m afraid.
See, you did it again with Haiku - but not the Limerick?
Again, I have written Limericks... most of them unpublishable on here but I think all just about conform to what is understood by a Limerick. Moreover, many have been used to amuse people... though I don’t think they were counting syllables at the time.
James, here on this very enjoyable site we need all sorts of poetry and prose to discuss and educate us and to stimulate responses in each other. I love our exchanges and always look forward to seeing that you have added input. Like you James, I am far from expert on any subject, but I know what I like!!
Amen to that - and, remember, so do the readers / listeners (and the vast majority, outside writers’ circles like this do not know the precise requirements of most forms of literature - so you will not be carted off to the local nick if you sneak in an extra syllable).
We really need a virtual pub if we are to have these long discussions!
Best wishes, thanks again, J.
Dear Jox
Whew !
You say "so you will not be carted off to the local nick if you sneak in an extra syllable"
..... only if you sneak OFF with it .....
Re the great debate, forms are necessary. As is Jox's attitude to breaking them.
There is obviously a grey area about when the breaking of causes it to no longer being a "form". There, I've summed up 4357 words in 33 !
Love
Alan
PS Btw, do our cousins from abroad know "nick" for prison ?
I once did a walk of Southwark, London, and learned that the reason CLINK is a slang for prison is that the Bishop of Winchester (once a power in the land of UK) had a palace in London whose rear abutted Clink St, which is where the entrance to his private prison was.
Whew !
You say "so you will not be carted off to the local nick if you sneak in an extra syllable"
..... only if you sneak OFF with it .....
Re the great debate, forms are necessary. As is Jox's attitude to breaking them.
There is obviously a grey area about when the breaking of causes it to no longer being a "form". There, I've summed up 4357 words in 33 !
Love
Alan
PS Btw, do our cousins from abroad know "nick" for prison ?
I once did a walk of Southwark, London, and learned that the reason CLINK is a slang for prison is that the Bishop of Winchester (once a power in the land of UK) had a palace in London whose rear abutted Clink St, which is where the entrance to his private prison was.
Hi James.
So, we reach an impasse.
How about a pipe of peace? You put the tobacco in and I'll smoke it
From one who loves to differ (should be begs to differ of course but I knew you wouldn't like that James)
Love
Grace
So, we reach an impasse.
How about a pipe of peace? You put the tobacco in and I'll smoke it
Debating with James left me shattered
the pages with words freely splattered
At the end of the day
What more could one say?
Your friendship is what REALLY mattered.
the pages with words freely splattered
At the end of the day
What more could one say?
Your friendship is what REALLY mattered.
From one who loves to differ (should be begs to differ of course but I knew you wouldn't like that James)
Love
Grace
Less ‘n a Limerick
Well, I ain't gonna join in debate;
it confuses my beat and my gait!
But I still have to say,
"Get yer feet in the way,
and you'll trip ev'ry time; that's yer fate!"
You can write in five lines to cinquain;
if ya do, I ain’t gonna complain,
but a Lim’rick’s a Lim’rick
whatever yer gimmick.
“One rule: it must jig!” my refrain.
3 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 3 it must be
if a Lim'rick ya call it, ya see.
With those feet we can prance.
Sure, it won't be romance,
but your toes will be safe and bruise-free!
Call it anything else; I’ll rejoice!
Make a fool o’ yerself in loud voice,
and I’ll clap with the rest
both in joy and in jest,
but a Lim’rick’s a Lim’rick. Yer choice!
© Daniel J Ricketts 08 Oct 2003
steppin' Lightly, Daniel
Well, I ain't gonna join in debate;
it confuses my beat and my gait!
But I still have to say,
"Get yer feet in the way,
and you'll trip ev'ry time; that's yer fate!"
You can write in five lines to cinquain;
if ya do, I ain’t gonna complain,
but a Lim’rick’s a Lim’rick
whatever yer gimmick.
“One rule: it must jig!” my refrain.
3 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 3 it must be
if a Lim'rick ya call it, ya see.
With those feet we can prance.
Sure, it won't be romance,
but your toes will be safe and bruise-free!
Call it anything else; I’ll rejoice!
Make a fool o’ yerself in loud voice,
and I’ll clap with the rest
both in joy and in jest,
but a Lim’rick’s a Lim’rick. Yer choice!
© Daniel J Ricketts 08 Oct 2003
steppin' Lightly, Daniel
Grace, Alan, Daniel...
Alan...
There is obviously a grey area about when the breaking of causes it to no longer being a "form". There, I've summed up 4357 words in 33 !
You missed your golden opportunity - what about 4,357 into one - Touché!
By the way, thanks for counting all those words; I lost track at 2,356.
Nick, yes. Actually often the police station cells as well. (First port of call). Thanks for the clarification.
Southwark - yes we were nearly in The Clink there a couple of years ago. Funny that you should mention the Bish of Winchester - You’ve found my lair!
Quite right: "so you will not be carted off to the local nick if you nick an extra syllable.” Is that less confusing? Two nicks? Must have been shaving dangerously!
Grace...
No peace of pipe needed; no war! But, yes I think we ought to rest the debate there for a bit if you are so content (and Dolly is) - but I’m happy to start again any time.
Great Limerick - very apt; enjoyed that, thank you. I think you should post that in a forum about Limericks. Oh, you did!
Daniel...
You say you won’t join the debate but your excellent Deckered Limerick (my name for it) does look, suspiciously, like a clever contribution. However, since you do not wish to debate and I’ve tackled your points already (above), I won’t respond - save to repeat: a very amusing Deckered Limerick.
People of MM...
You have seen the debate waged fiercely - but friendly - here. You make up your own minds. Thanks to all who took part.
My penultimate thought:
(To finish a Limerick which I started but no one took up...)
There once was a girl with little luck
Who altered Limericks for the odd Buck,
When informed she should stop,
She called a Poetry Cop,
Who said “Scrum Down for the Syllable Ruck!”
(See, I said it didn’t have to be obscene!)
(Ruck is a rugby term and means when all the forwards lock in a thunderous bid to gain the ball).
My Ultimate thought:
Wilfred Owen did not write Limericks.
(end)
Alan...
There is obviously a grey area about when the breaking of causes it to no longer being a "form". There, I've summed up 4357 words in 33 !
You missed your golden opportunity - what about 4,357 into one - Touché!
By the way, thanks for counting all those words; I lost track at 2,356.
Nick, yes. Actually often the police station cells as well. (First port of call). Thanks for the clarification.
Southwark - yes we were nearly in The Clink there a couple of years ago. Funny that you should mention the Bish of Winchester - You’ve found my lair!
Quite right: "so you will not be carted off to the local nick if you nick an extra syllable.” Is that less confusing? Two nicks? Must have been shaving dangerously!
Grace...
No peace of pipe needed; no war! But, yes I think we ought to rest the debate there for a bit if you are so content (and Dolly is) - but I’m happy to start again any time.
Great Limerick - very apt; enjoyed that, thank you. I think you should post that in a forum about Limericks. Oh, you did!
Daniel...
You say you won’t join the debate but your excellent Deckered Limerick (my name for it) does look, suspiciously, like a clever contribution. However, since you do not wish to debate and I’ve tackled your points already (above), I won’t respond - save to repeat: a very amusing Deckered Limerick.
People of MM...
You have seen the debate waged fiercely - but friendly - here. You make up your own minds. Thanks to all who took part.
My penultimate thought:
(To finish a Limerick which I started but no one took up...)
There once was a girl with little luck
Who altered Limericks for the odd Buck,
When informed she should stop,
She called a Poetry Cop,
Who said “Scrum Down for the Syllable Ruck!”
(See, I said it didn’t have to be obscene!)
(Ruck is a rugby term and means when all the forwards lock in a thunderous bid to gain the ball).
My Ultimate thought:
Wilfred Owen did not write Limericks.
(end)
QUOTE
People of MM...
You have seen the debate waged fiercely - but friendly - here. You make up your own minds. Thanks to all who took part.
My penultimate thought:
(To finish a Limerick which I started but no one took up...)
There once was a girl withoutlittle luck
who changed lim'ricks for athe odd buck.
Wheninformed she should ordered to stop,
she called in apoetry cop,
who said, "Scrum Down for the Syl'ble Ruck!" This last line still has one too many stresses, but not understanding the sentence, I couldn't really alter it to fit.
This last line must be a Brit thing? :costume:
(See, I said it didn't have to be obscene!) Totally!!
You have seen the debate waged fiercely - but friendly - here. You make up your own minds. Thanks to all who took part.
My penultimate thought:
(To finish a Limerick which I started but no one took up...)
There once was a girl without
who changed lim'ricks for a
When
she called in a
who said, "Scrum Down for the Syl'ble Ruck!" This last line still has one too many stresses, but not understanding the sentence, I couldn't really alter it to fit.
This last line must be a Brit thing? :costume:
(See, I said it didn't have to be obscene!) Totally!!
My Good Man,
thank you for all your time and efforts. However, being who I am, I simply could NOT leave your delightful limerick with too many stresses, so I've made the necessary corrections.
Thanks so much,
Dolly
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh Daniel!
Thanks so much for coming by and adding your delightful limericking verses! Cleverly done, as usual! Making teaching and learning FUN! Yea! Much appreciated!
Blessings,
Dolly :pharoah:
Thanks so much for coming by and adding your delightful limericking verses! Cleverly done, as usual! Making teaching and learning FUN! Yea! Much appreciated!
Blessings,
Dolly :pharoah:
Grace, Alan, Lori, James, and all,
Thanks so very much for your participation in this debate. Don't know if we actually learned much of anything, but it was certainly interesting!
Blessings,
Dolly
Thanks so very much for your participation in this debate. Don't know if we actually learned much of anything, but it was certainly interesting!
Blessings,
Dolly
Hi Dolly,
I was looking forward to your orthodox conversion...
I'll just explain that Limerick... (I thought you'd like my attempt at an American one)...
"Buck" is an American slang term for the American currency, the Dollar (Which itself, by the way, comes from the Spanish term for "Pieces of Eight".
"Cop" is the American slang for Policeman. It is a truncation of the British slang for policeman, "Copper". (Origin unknown by me).
Scrum Down and Ruck are Rugby (the game) terms - not British ones per se. (Though Rugny was invented at Rugny School in the English Midlands - and Rugby is very close to Stratford-Upon-Avon. It's always great to bring in Shakespeare - though I don't know if he's make a good Rugby, nor Limerick, referee!)
On Saturday in Sydney, Australia, the 2003 Rugby World Cup starts...
Rugby World Cup 2003 Site
As you'll see from the current first-page article, the USA is playing. (The US's team is called the USA Eagles"
15/10/03 17:00 (Australian time) Suncorp Stadium FIJI Vs USA - the USA's first match... you will be able to watch it there.
The favourites to win are England or Australia... but you can cheer for the USA whilst I'm fervently supporting Cymru / Wales.
Oh yes! Scrum Down and Ruck are terms for the same thing really... All the front players on each team lock arms and bend down with their team mates then the two teams lock heads - very much like deer when the stags lock antlers. Someone then throws the rugby ball in to this group of players and each side tries to hook the ball out behind to its own players so they have possession and can run with the ball to score - knowing that much of the opposing team is still locked in the ruck. It is a great game to watch and I hope you do see some of the play.
By the way, on this USA / British thing... At school I was a hooker. (Honest!) Oh yes, a hooker in rugby is the poor player at the front of the ruck whose job it is to hook that ball out (using feet) to the back of his players... usually end up in a kicking match with the opposing players as each hooker desperately tries to get the ball.
Make sense now... ?
There once was a girl with little luck
Who altered Limericks for the odd Buck,
When informed she should stop,
She called a Poetry Cop,
Who said “Scrum Down for the Syllable Ruck!”
Yours in diversity
around an entity,
Don’t miss the Rugby!
Which doesn’t rhyme.
Cheerio for now, J.
I was looking forward to your orthodox conversion...
I'll just explain that Limerick... (I thought you'd like my attempt at an American one)...
"Buck" is an American slang term for the American currency, the Dollar (Which itself, by the way, comes from the Spanish term for "Pieces of Eight".
"Cop" is the American slang for Policeman. It is a truncation of the British slang for policeman, "Copper". (Origin unknown by me).
Scrum Down and Ruck are Rugby (the game) terms - not British ones per se. (Though Rugny was invented at Rugny School in the English Midlands - and Rugby is very close to Stratford-Upon-Avon. It's always great to bring in Shakespeare - though I don't know if he's make a good Rugby, nor Limerick, referee!)
On Saturday in Sydney, Australia, the 2003 Rugby World Cup starts...
Rugby World Cup 2003 Site
As you'll see from the current first-page article, the USA is playing. (The US's team is called the USA Eagles"
15/10/03 17:00 (Australian time) Suncorp Stadium FIJI Vs USA - the USA's first match... you will be able to watch it there.
The favourites to win are England or Australia... but you can cheer for the USA whilst I'm fervently supporting Cymru / Wales.
Oh yes! Scrum Down and Ruck are terms for the same thing really... All the front players on each team lock arms and bend down with their team mates then the two teams lock heads - very much like deer when the stags lock antlers. Someone then throws the rugby ball in to this group of players and each side tries to hook the ball out behind to its own players so they have possession and can run with the ball to score - knowing that much of the opposing team is still locked in the ruck. It is a great game to watch and I hope you do see some of the play.
By the way, on this USA / British thing... At school I was a hooker. (Honest!) Oh yes, a hooker in rugby is the poor player at the front of the ruck whose job it is to hook that ball out (using feet) to the back of his players... usually end up in a kicking match with the opposing players as each hooker desperately tries to get the ball.
Make sense now... ?
There once was a girl with little luck
Who altered Limericks for the odd Buck,
When informed she should stop,
She called a Poetry Cop,
Who said “Scrum Down for the Syllable Ruck!”
Yours in diversity
around an entity,
Don’t miss the Rugby!
Which doesn’t rhyme.
Cheerio for now, J.
I ain’t really the Limerick Cop;
I’m just ridin’ the beat; thought I’d stop
in and Howdy ya all
on this beautiful fall
day in Jersey. I’m off now. clip-clop
© Daniel J Ricketts 09 Oct 2003
Pee S
Just to prove that I ain't the Limerick Cop (After all, I live in Bridgeton, NJ, and I ain't never been to England, even though my blood runs Brit/Scot/Irish and I'm said to be a descendent of the throne -- my grams said from a bastard of some chambermaid), I offer the following:
A Wee Poem
I was lying there cozy-warm, dripping,
enthralled with a poem so gripping
'bout the joy of relief. . .
that it's beyond belief
I'd awakened wet-sheet skinny-dipping!
(Well, I've done that before!) Dawned this picture
full-blown . . . and in limerick stricture!
. . . as I woke up today.
Guess it's write-all-night pay?
Hasn't wee-morning-hour-writes e'er tripped yer . . .
[Can I say it aloud? Too offensive?
Would my sharing it be too expensive?
Will no beauty they see
in the thrill of a wee?
Is their free-verse that all-comprehensive?]
There! I've SAID it! Now, what are you thinking?
Send me off to the show'rs? Say, "It's stinking!"?
I don't care . . . if you laugh!
Poke me back. [Please don't gaff!]
Do you think this old mind needs un-kinking?
© Daniel J Ricketts 06 Feb 2002
upon arising after limericking-for-release into the wee hours.
I’m just ridin’ the beat; thought I’d stop
in and Howdy ya all
on this beautiful fall
day in Jersey. I’m off now. clip-clop
© Daniel J Ricketts 09 Oct 2003
Pee S
Just to prove that I ain't the Limerick Cop (After all, I live in Bridgeton, NJ, and I ain't never been to England, even though my blood runs Brit/Scot/Irish and I'm said to be a descendent of the throne -- my grams said from a bastard of some chambermaid), I offer the following:
A Wee Poem
I was lying there cozy-warm, dripping,
enthralled with a poem so gripping
'bout the joy of relief. . .
that it's beyond belief
I'd awakened wet-sheet skinny-dipping!
(Well, I've done that before!) Dawned this picture
full-blown . . . and in limerick stricture!
. . . as I woke up today.
Guess it's write-all-night pay?
Hasn't wee-morning-hour-writes e'er tripped yer . . .
[Can I say it aloud? Too offensive?
Would my sharing it be too expensive?
Will no beauty they see
in the thrill of a wee?
Is their free-verse that all-comprehensive?]
There! I've SAID it! Now, what are you thinking?
Send me off to the show'rs? Say, "It's stinking!"?
I don't care . . . if you laugh!
Poke me back. [Please don't gaff!]
Do you think this old mind needs un-kinking?
© Daniel J Ricketts 06 Feb 2002
upon arising after limericking-for-release into the wee hours.
Thanks James, for your:
Hi Dolly,
A birthday? Well, very many happy returns! I hope you have a most enjoyable week.
It's been good so far. Thanks for your well wishes! Thanking you was not an intentional omission, but simply an oversight. As for now,
It's two in the morning ... I'm sleepy.
Don't wanna get crabby and creepy.
So, off to my bed
with dreams in my head;
I'll be bright-eyed in morn, not weepy.
PS, James, didja know "bucks" is from the word "buckskins" that the early US pioneers and American Indians used as currency? It was later shortened to "buck" standing for a dollar in gold or later, in paper currency.
I KNOW you know where "goodbye" came from, right?
Good night all,
Athena/Dolly
Hi Dolly,
A birthday? Well, very many happy returns! I hope you have a most enjoyable week.
It's been good so far. Thanks for your well wishes! Thanking you was not an intentional omission, but simply an oversight. As for now,
Don't wanna get crabby and creepy.
So, off to my bed
with dreams in my head;
I'll be bright-eyed in morn, not weepy.
PS, James, didja know "bucks" is from the word "buckskins" that the early US pioneers and American Indians used as currency? It was later shortened to "buck" standing for a dollar in gold or later, in paper currency.
I KNOW you know where "goodbye" came from, right?
Good night all,
Athena/Dolly
There was a young lady named Dolly
Who was clever and awfully jolly
Unless there's a time
When her words will not rhyme
And then she gets quite melancholy.
Or an Egyptian variation
Near the Nile all the farmers are sowing
and look forward to fields of corn growing.
They feel ill at ease
at the strength of the breeze
and unhappy at where it is blowing
You may have to think about that one.
Egyptian peasants wear kilts you see.
Like Scots without the tartan.
God this site is educational!
Then there is the Welsh Theberick
(Spoken gutturally, as one clearing the throat.)
There once was a poet from Wales
Who told the most unlikely tales
When he read them out loud
He incited the crowd
So he went to live in Llanfairpwchgwyngychgogerychllanblodwilllantisiliogogogoch.
This variation allows us to write without worrying unduly about endrhymes.
Or should we put it in another thread.
A
Who was clever and awfully jolly
Unless there's a time
When her words will not rhyme
And then she gets quite melancholy.
Or an Egyptian variation
Near the Nile all the farmers are sowing
and look forward to fields of corn growing.
They feel ill at ease
at the strength of the breeze
and unhappy at where it is blowing
You may have to think about that one.
Egyptian peasants wear kilts you see.
Like Scots without the tartan.
God this site is educational!
Then there is the Welsh Theberick
(Spoken gutturally, as one clearing the throat.)
There once was a poet from Wales
Who told the most unlikely tales
When he read them out loud
He incited the crowd
So he went to live in Llanfairpwchgwyngychgogerychllanblodwilllantisiliogogogoch.
This variation allows us to write without worrying unduly about endrhymes.
Or should we put it in another thread.
A
Hi Dolly,
Nice Limerick.
Goodbye? No I don't know its derivation; pray tell.
J.
Nice Limerick.
Goodbye? No I don't know its derivation; pray tell.
J.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.