Hudibrastic Verse, Hudibrastic Verse Options

[Arnfinn]

Hi everyone, I thought this maybe of interest.



Hudibrastic Verse

Hudibrastic verse. So called from Samuel Butler’s Hudibras  (1643, 1674, 1678), a mock-heroic satirical poem in octosyllabic couplets. Butler’s wit, exuberance and invention of the poem have made it an outstanding instance of what may be called ‘low satire’.

These lines from Canto 1 give an idea of the tone and manner of Hudibrastic poetry: octosyllabic couplets of twelve lines.

He was in Logick a great Critick,
Profoundly skill’d in Analytick.
He could distinguish, and divide
A Hair twixt South and South-West side:
On either which he would dispute,
Confute, changes hands, and still confute.
He’d undertake to prove by force
Of Argument, a Man’s no horse.
He’d prove a Buzard is no Fowl,
And that a Lord may be an Owl;
A Calf an Alderman, a Goose a Justice,
And Rooks Committee-men and Trustees.

The above written, in the manner of the day, is wry and dry humour. I particularly like the reference to parting ones hair.

I’m usually pretty good at writing satire, but when I started to write a Hudibrastic poem, my mind couldn’t conjure up a satirical subject.
The old brain stalled to a halt?
Anyway I’d thought I’d post this for information of MM poets and writers.


John

[Guest_Maxim_*]

Hi Arnfinn

Hudibrastic Verse

Hudibrastic verse. So called from Samuel Butler’s Hudibras  (1643, 1674, 1678), a mock-heroic satirical poem in octosyllabic couplets. Butler’s wit, exuberance and invention of the poem have made it an outstanding instance of what may be called ‘low satire’.

I am not as prolific a writer as many here and have only tried a few strict forms (restricted more through lack of time - and probably talent! - than desire). Although I tend to rhyme and meter - my poems that are best received usually have there own 'voice' and rhythym although this will hopefully be more directed as I become more familiar with various forms. I was therefore interested to note this posting as I may have (inadvertantly) written a piece in this form. It has already been critted here in one of the older forums but here it is an example:

The Proficient Critic

I'm quiet well known, in certain parts,
for work with the poetic arts.
My skills are honed I'm most proficient
at pointing out all that's deficient.
Myself? I rarely write a line
but use my talents to divine
the failings in the works I've read;
thus my corrective creed is spread.

And yet it seldom does behoove
to indicate how to improve.
Time was when I'd permit discourse
but writers would object, perforce,
for most could not appreciate
the subtleties of my debate.
So now I'll indicate what's wrong
and then I'll smartly move along.

Accomplishments? How best to say
that my opinions have held sway?
I well recall a would-be bard
whose work, though adequate, was marred,
Once I'd exposed his every flaw,
he subsequently wrote no more.
Ergo the wisdoms I dispense
can clearly have great influence.

What qualifies me, you may ask,
that I should undertake this task
to keep poetic standards high?
A weighty charge, I'll not deny.
Well I have studied ancient Greeks
and I can quote obscure techniques,
but mostly, with innate insight,
I always seem to know what's right.

So now I seek a greater test;
I'll change the precepts of what's best
by using all the skills I know
on such as Shelley, Keats and Poe.
Let others claim these works sublime,
I know that I'll find fault, in time,
and thus will show no verse, as yet,
can meet the standards that I set.

Is the first person perspective permitted? If it does meet the definition I'll be encouraged to think that I have written something in a recognised format - even if more by accident than design!

MaXiM