Phrasing in Poetry

[ysabetwordsmith]

Here's an article about phrasing in poetry, with attention to grammar.

My stance, as a writer and reader and editor of poetry, is that in this form of literature the language is fluid.  All rules may be broken in pursuit of expression.  The catch is that the poem still has to work.  If breaking the rules makes the poem less clear and/or less engaging to the reader, that's a flaw.  Same for following the rules.

That odd little thing the author is griping about?  It expresses a concept that English grammar doesn't support in standard format.  It's a half-step between simultaneous and sequential action, with a particular flavor of compression.  I use it -- when I want that exact effect in the flow of the action.  I've also seen people overuse it, and I suspect they've picked it up because they've seen it somewhere without necessarily realizing its precise purpose.  Then again, someone else may have their own interpretation of how it works and what it's for.

Don't use a quirky technique unless you need it; but when you do, don't let people talk you out of it.  Grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation -- those are all just means to an end, communication.  If they don't do what you need straight out of the box, you can rearrange them as necessary.

Comments

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

Don't use a quirky technique unless you need it; but when you do, don't let people talk you out of it.

Well said.

[khep.livejournal.com]

I like the topic :)

I like poetry that breaks rules to sound as it's intended. I also like when reading a poem makes you speak with the voice of the poet, instead of sticking to formal forms.

I once had a poetry professor say that you should never dumb down your poem to make sure your audience understood the words you used or your references. Then he and my group criticized when they didn't understand a reference that was not mainstream enough to recognize (but that you see often in metaphysical circles for example).

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>>I like poetry that breaks rules to sound as it's intended.<<

Agreed. If it sounds like a mistake, that's not appealing. So it helps if the variances repeat enough that they stick to each other and create a cohesive sound.

>> I also like when reading a poem makes you speak with the voice of the poet, instead of sticking to formal forms.<<

For similar reasons, I like poems with dialect or local color.

>>I once had a poetry professor say that you should never dumb down your poem to make sure your audience understood the words you used or your references. Then he and my group criticized when they didn't understand a reference that was not mainstream enough to recognize (but that you see often in metaphysical circles for example).<<

The part that's true: a poem needs to reach its intended audience.

The part that's not true: a poem needs to make equal sense to everyone.

Some poems are just plain poorly written. They use big words clumsily. They are obfuscating rather than mysterious. The sounds go clunk. They're boring.

Other poems are well suited to their target audience but difficult to grasp for others. Sometimes that is really, really deliberate as the poet lobs the ball high over a building to escape the reach of those the poet does not favor. Much activist poetry is like this.

Then too, it is possible to make poems deliberately inclusive, not by dumbing them down, but by leading the audience to discover new vocabulary or ideas as revealed through the poem -- for instance, to use a specific yet obscure word, then follow with a rephrasing of its definition.

[westrider.livejournal.com]

One of my music teachers once told me that nothing screwed up grammar as much as writing Lyrics, because even if you're abandoning Rhyme, Scansion still takes priority over grammar.

And when you're deliberately doing weird things with the rhythms and pacing, yeah, all the rules subordinate to getting the effect you need.

The Icon's directed at the linked article, not you. I just don't get many chances to use that one ;)

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think that working with lyrics -- with any poetic form that imposes a set of specific rules -- improves awareness of grammar. That's what makes the difference between awkward lyrics and elegant ones. You learn how words and phrases can be juggled around, what works well, and what doesn't. You learn about sounds and how they fit together or don't.

This is a key reason why I admire writers like Dr. Seuss, who had a tremendously advanced grasp of linguistics and managed to make it all but invisible, hidden within charming children's poetry that is still irresistible mindcandy precisely because of the tricks it plays with sound and meaning.