Science or Art, IP, abab Options

[jgdittier]

Is poetry a science or an art,
its form an inmate's solitary state,
enchained by prose's flavor, naught but tart,
encased in walls of brick or solid slate?

When wisdom rules as commeth forth from mind;
if crystal hard, a mold, no choice allows.
Behold, we've verse of scientific kind,
less choice for guffaws, nor for laughs and howls.

If verse is art, the poet then is free
to entertain us any way his muse
can choose, like Charlie on "Berg's" knee,
and none of Milton's methods man may lose.

May bards e'er be the forces to elate,
humanity's approach to verse, sublime
and pray our minds we vow to never sate
and lose these joys we nurse with beat and rhyme.

note "Berg's" =Edgar Bergin, ventriloquist/humorist,
Charlie McCarthy was his dummy

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Ron.

You'll see, if you visit Room 101, in the banter section, that I have been talking about my dogs. Well, I took a copy of your poem (destroyed now - no copyright problems!) out with me when the three of us went round the woods today.

It has taken me a while to get to grips with it but I have realised two things:

1. This poem is against modern structured poems.
2. This poem is another in your arguments about such.

It was rather enjoyable but I remain puzzled a little, sorry. Here's my Q:

What is the difference between modern structured poems (which I tend to avoid) and old structured poems (which I tend to avoid). You are interested in bards - what about the Shakesperian Sonnet?. In t'other words, how does one differentiate between forms over the ages - aren't they all constraints (or, as Daniel would have it, I think, opportunities)?

Thanks in anticipation.

James.

[jgdittier]

Dear James,
How nice of you to ask this question as it's a excuse to restate my quest (see "quills" to read my latest as to my quest).
Please for a moment promote me to the rank of English professor and assume that I am grading and commenting on "Science or Art" which has been submitted as an acedemic exercize.
My responses are in soft, thick red pencil.

s1l2-"inmate" appears too vague, no basis has been laid as to why
this word applies here
s2l1-"commeth" is both archaic and suggests its usage only to maintain the cadence
s2l2-words are inverted for the purpose of an end rhyme with "howls", howls not a suitable word to be used at all, especially in a rhyme
s2l3-"we,ve",contractions should be avoided
s3l3-efforts should be taken to avoid demeaning Mr. Bergin by trivializing his name
s3l4-excessive alliteration detracts from the seriousness of the piece
s4l1-sees2l3
s3l3-"sate" misused in verb form and a split infinitive
general-the meter is consistantly iambic pentameter, suggesting the possibility that the verse could be embellished by prudent deviations from the constant repetition.
general-there might well be a question as to why the student didn't
emphasize message by avoiding the constraints of R&R
I wouldn't be surprised if the prof included a note requiring the student to meet with the prof such that the prof could remind
the student that now is not the 1700's.

Cheers,    jgd

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Ron...

Most kind of you - and inventive to use that technique. (Could we have a web address for "Quills" please? I think the previous one didn't work for non members, as I recall.)

Could I ask you please, for my brain is a simple one, to kindly put your arguments down in continuous prose, as to what you think the difference is between modern and olden forms. I suggest that in your answer, above, you focus on the prejudice you perceive in modern academia. You may well be right; I have no idea. But it still leave the central question of difference by stance, rather than category and example.

If you've written your arguments down previously, why not just copy them here, too? I'm sure many would be interested.

I’ll put it this way - I see no difference in the degree of limitations imposed by Swap Quatrains and Shakespearean Sonnets (and Daniel sees great possibilities in each). But you do see a modern / olden schism. It’s that schism I’m trying to understand. Thanks!

Yours in hopeful anticipation, James.

[jgdittier]

Dear James,
Do google search for 'goldenquills'
Fear not in becoming member-no hurt
For comments in prose see "A Poet Knows", comments 1/8/5 to Psyche
I suppose Cleo must decide specs for Swap Quatrain, (SW). I'd assume similar to modern rondeau.
I assume Shakespearean sonnets use old world devices and SWs and rondeaus don't. The old world devices cause the schism between
poetry of yore and 1)free verse, 2)modern R&R,3)modern non R&R such as haiku
I recently mailed 16 chapbooks of my paras to 16 colleges with a questionaire. Only one was returned. I bought the book the returnee had published. It was exclusively fv.

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reply.

Sorry, Googling for "goldenquills" doesn't work. It brings just two sites up - one not even in English. I tried entering it as two words and a myriad of sites was then returned and I couldn't see a likely site. You don't have a URL?

I shall have to go to fine your reply to Sylvia.

I don’t think you can draw any conclusion from your mailing to colleges. Teaches receive vast piles of bumph daily and most of it is binned without looking - we simply don’t have time to read-though - or even to bother opening the envelopes. I’m very sorry but I fear that fate probably hit your chapbooks. It is far more likely than they opened them and carefully read through them. I suggest you don’t adopt that technique with educational institutions - they really are bombarded. If you want to get involved, it is likely some would welcome that (if it fits into their programmes) but just drop a line first - you’ll save a fortune!

I think your description of haiku might be a tad off. It is an ancient verse-dorm - though, yes only relatively recently has it been adopted in “The West.” And, though I am out of my depth here, are haikus not R&R - they have set numbers of syllables which (if not written by me) will tend to produce a certain rhythm, will they not?

You talk of “old world devices,” What do you mean please? (I have still to read your reply to Sylvia, so it may be there?)

Cleo has set the parameters for SQs already... but I was only using the SQ as an example, anyway.

Ok, I’ll go hunt down your prose-pose to Sylvia. See you later.

James.

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Ron... Your cited reply to Sylvia:

>>Having not dabbled much with poetry between the 40's and 2001 I know nothing, absolutely nothing about modern form. Without the structure of rhythm and rhyme I'd have no way to begin and no way to know where I'm going. Often it is the R&R that dictates where the message goes.
This may simply be a way to explain the fact that mostly I lack the psyche of the poet but I believe I do have a penchant for the mechanics of verse writing. That's why I write light, not of love, God, nature, etc. which are true topics for the serious poet.

Ok, understood that. I don't know if it's true or you are better than you claim but I understood it.

>>As I don't generally understand the mindset of the poet writing emotional pieces in free verse, I understand the poet writing emotional pieces in free verse and having had that style taught to him in school doesn't understand my need for the R&R structure.

Sorry, Ron... emm confused. Could you please explain?

I was overjoyed to find that Poe was a perfect case re R&R and a convenient rhyme. Poe fit so well it doesn't look like a forced rhyme, now held in low regard.

A bit sweeping? Who, specifically holds EAP in low regard?

>>I believe the bards of yore

Who are they - or, at least, what (rough) dates are you thinking of?

>>considered forced rhymes as a sometime necessity as the value of R&R was great then.

Why a necessity? If they were very inventive could they not do better?

>>Modern poetry disdains the usage of elisions, inversions, slant rhymes, etc. as now the emphasis is entirely on message and expression.

By "modern poetry," which styles do you mean - surely, "modern poetry" only means almost any style nowerdays. Are we not really in a post-modernist era?

This is interesting but I still think it hard to distinguish between modern (at least in writing dates) and traditioinal forms, insofar as the opportunitirs they offer and the constraints whic they impose.

I don't think that's true. There are many form poems out there which bend meaning and words to fit the form - they do not place message first. Or is that what you meant by "expression"? But is there anything else apaty from meaning and method. What third way would there be, please?

>>Hope I'm not causing eye strain!

emmm :)

Thanks, in anticipation of your clarifications / explanations, Ron - 'tis appreciated.


Cheers, Ron James.

[jgdittier]

Dear James,
You do keep the board active and it's the active boards that
draw the postings!
Re emotional pieces in free verse, I can understand that dropping R&R opens the door for emphasis on message/expression. I don't know how to write such pieces as I've no such training but do understand that others who have been trained can write in that style.

It was forced rhyme, not Poe, now held in low regard.

Yore for me means past. Those who write in the style of yore are poets of yore.

"Why a necessity? If they were very inventive could they not do better?"  Are you talking about style of yore or fv? Our archives of style of yore poetry would be perhaps 10% of what exists as it's (my opinion) 10x harder to write R&R with all the modern restrictions.
As to fv, more invention might be used to include R&R? No?

I'd use modern as defined in a dictionary, not in a poetry text book.

It seems we both appreciate a respect for freedom in what we call poetry. You appreciate the freedom to be relieved from established
meter and rhyme. I appreciate the freedom to write within the constraints of meter and rhyme but it a style far removed from prose.

Cheers,      jgd

[Guest_Jox_*]

>>Dear James, You do keep the board active and it's the active boards that
draw the postings!

Hi Ron - thanks. But I think it's just my big mouth and fast fingers.

>>Re emotional pieces in free verse, I can understand that dropping R&R opens the door for emphasis on message/expression. I don't know how to write such pieces as I've no such training but do understand that others who have been trained can write in that style.

I have no training in writing poetry - nor, I think, have most people on MM, at least. Though, I admit I have - about thirty years ago - studies some poetry and I have taught poetry appreciation. I hope you don't mind if I say that all you might lack is a little confidence - your poetry is very good and, if you wished to, I am sure that you could write well in freeverse. Mind you, I respect your idea of specialising in a specific field - master it. Good idea.

As another point - I never think that I'm "dropping R&R;" I simply feel that sometimes rhyme helps so I "bolt it on." I don't understand rhythm at all - and, unless it is as obvious as Skimbleshanks, never see it.

>>It was forced rhyme, not Poe, now held in low regard.

Thanks! My error.

>>Yore for me means past. Those who write in the style of yore are poets of yore.

Yup, "yore" as a word does mean the past - but the hardly pins it down. Yesterday is the past, after all.

"Why a necessity? If they were very inventive could they not do better?"  Are you talking about style of yore or fv? Our archives of style of yore poetry would be perhaps 10% of what exists as it's (my opinion) 10x harder to write R&R with all the modern restrictions.
As to fv, more invention might be used to include R&R? No?

I'd use modern as defined in a dictionary, not in a poetry text book.

It seems we both appreciate a respect for freedom in what we call poetry. You appreciate the freedom to be relieved from established
meter and rhyme. I appreciate the freedom to write within the constraints of meter and rhyme but it a style far removed from prose.

Ron, I simply like poems I enjoy. I cannot write as you do - but I do enjoy some poems which you write. People are free to write in any way they wish for me and about virtually anything - though some things I wouldn't read and just a few I wonder if society should allow - but really I'm against banning (almost?) anything.

I think I'd better leave it there - else you'll have no rest. However, I'm still puzzled as to how you differentiate between modern forms and old (leaving freeverse entirely out of this), which ages of poets you "model" your poetry on - or are most inspired by - and where that website is!

Cheers and thanks for the debate.

Take care, James.

[jgdittier]

Dear James,
I fear all this chatter may alienate Cleo, for whom I have highest regard, so will comment here and then let this thread unravel.

I have not your "fast fingers" only one slow finger with a high error ratio.

I've read the entire thread under "The Times, They Are  A-Changing".
I think I learned alot just now and would like to sate your interest
re my style of R&R. Without writing a treatise, perhaps I can define it as R&R with these additions/subtractions:
Whatever I write, whether light or serious, is written in a light style often exaggerating the degree of poetic license others, of modern style or yore, consider good practice.
The excess of poetic license is intended to appeal to those who
appreciate light verse usually ending with a smile rather than those
who prefer their poetry to elate them or please them with its beauty and perfection and adherence to current fashion.
Although I write in the style annoted above, I intend for my result to be more like that of Edgar Guest than of John Milton. I try seriously to make my writing enjoyable and do not let text-book conventions get in my way.

We have exchanged much thought and hopefully shared our comments with others here. I don't think our comments qualified as a debate, rather an explanation that makes us better known to all the rest and now I can go back to Homer's!

Cheers,     jgd

[Guest_Jox_*]

You won't upset "Cleo" - her point is please crit in crit threads. This is not a crit thread. Besides it's actually on topic!

Thanks for your reply and visiting my "Times"

I wouldn't go back to Homer's to post! It's closed to new posts - but please do post in the new forum (I won't say "forums," given your specialism).

Good luck and see you later.

James.

[JustDaniel]

Hey, Ron...

I'm such a slow reader... and I finally got to reading this one, appreciating it... then getting confused in the barrage of discussion that followed, in which I surprisingly found my name, coming something short of disparaging my point of view [ Notice that I DID say, SHORT of; so no reaction is necessary from anyone. ]  Anyhow, I remain confused, especially by your professorial response parody.

What are you saying in this poem?  PLEASE forgive my dimness in this, Ron.  You know that I appreciate your writing.

sLightly confused, Daniel  :speechless:

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Ron, Please excuse me slightly diverting your tile for a moment...

Daniel, Hi...

>>discussion that followed, in which I surprisingly found my name, coming something short of disparaging my point of view [ Notice that I DID say, SHORT of; so no reaction is necessary from anyone. ]

The only reference to you that I can find is mine from my first post in this thread - Viz:

>>What is the difference between modern structured poems (which I tend to avoid) and old structured poems (which I tend to avoid). You are interested in bards - what about the Shakespearian Sonnet?. In t'other words, how does one differentiate between forms over the ages - aren't they all constraints (or, as Daniel would have it, I think, opportunities)?

So I think I’d better offer a reaction...

It was a compliment (nothing to do with being disparaging to you, nor to your point of view) and, after re-reading it several times, I'm not sure how it could be seen any other way. Surely, one who sees opportunities, where others merely see constraints, is someone to be praised? No?

You may remember that we discussed (on MM) how you like to take various forms and develop them in new ways? That was to what this refers.

James.

[JustDaniel]

Thank you for your clarification.  Your words are often capable of more than one interpretation, my friend... and you clearly note that you have no time or patience or interest, or whatever in meter and rhyme.  Your vists in it seem frequently to reinforce that perspective.

I struggle with free verse, but I really try to understand it and have surely tried to write in it.  I do not say that I cannot or will not.

Love in Light, Daniel  :sun:

Sorry for the interlude, Ron...

I anxiously await your clarification.