Rousseau, I like your last post very much, as it opens up a lot for discussion.
I seem to detect a little criticism leveled against formal poets, or traditionalists. I think this is by and large very healthy, not to mention wholly understandable. I do not object to your observations, per se, and in fact endorse them at least insofar as I think they are progressive and productive.
Why formal poetry? Why limit expression with strict parameters of syllables, verse structures, and further impede the creative spirit with rhyme?
I will have to get to those questions later, as it's time to head to work. It's a double, so my next response won't come for another 14 hrs or so.
I don't know that it's necessarily a criticism of traditional poetry, but rather just the recognition that tradition seems to constrain the form. Not in the sense that you can't write good traditional poetry, but because tradition sets people's expectations of what
poetry is. So in the last century anyone who's made a name for themselves as a poet is more similar to those who came before them, than they are different. Not unlike other art forms where you kind of have to play to popular perceptions if you want to make a name for yourself.
There are many traditional poets that I enjoy, but I make that post to note that in my own poetry I don't have a lot of interest in conforming to tradition. I read so many poets who write beautifully but where I either can't crack the code of their poem, or beneath the words there is minimal substance. And this is largely what sets my own writing apart - I wish to be explicit and clear, rather than to shroud. But traditionally you just don't see this style, which has caused me angst and a feeling that I'm doing it the
wrong way. But lately I'm realizing that traditionally popular poetry just isn't what I want to write.
On some level I'm starting to have a similar feeling to what you've expressed in some other posts - you got bored with the whole process, and that many poets who sell books do so from scratching each other's back. To the masses poetry has become a largely irrelevant and ignored genre, while those who wish to be public with it are often striving to conform to these very ignored norms. So what is the poet who seeks notoriety achieving, really, if their work is mostly ignored? Is it just an image thing?
My own personal motive is to express myself and to enjoy the process of creating and improving my writing skill. I think, fundamentally, this is what creative writing is about - expressing oneself and producing the art one wants to.
I didn't get to respond last night because I got involved with the Shakespeare thread.
As for your last sentence: we have a different view of what poetry is. For me it is not all about self expression, not at all. Rather, it is a craft which uses words and language to create an impression, paint a picture, describe a moment, or explore a mental state, etc. If all I want to do is express myself I can write a journal.
At the first poetry workshop I joined online, called PFFA (Poetry Free-For-All), they had an expression to describe overly personal poetry, or poetry that dwelled mostly on oneself: a diary entry. They would say, "this sounds like a diary entry...".
Now, I am sure that by self expression you do not simply mean being candid or confessional, nor do you mean that you ONLY want to write about yourself. I hope you don't misunderstand me.
In poetry workshops they stress the importance of using concrete imagery. I'm sure you have heard the maxim, 'show, don't tell'. This pertains to prose as well. 'Telly' language doesn't work well in any kind of creative writing. If an author tells us a character is "good looking", this conveys virtually no information; rather, a good author will describe the character's physical features in a way that will allow us to form a more specific image in mind. Generally, a lot of detail is good, until it becomes overdone, cloying, and actually distracts from the narrative. Melville and Hawthorne were amazing authors but often overloaded their narratives with baroque detail; the amazing Edith Wharton wrote exquisite detail. Steinbeck, Dos Passos, the list goes on...AND, you already know all this! Sorry...
With regard to poetry, concrete imagery is of the utmost importance. Ezra Pound had his famous "Go in fear of abstractions.", which workshops like to borrow. It IS a handy piece of advise, particularly when it comes to composing poetry wherein you are expressing emotional states rather than action. As you know, your poems will have more impact if you limit the use of abstractions and try somehow to show the reader what mental state you are or were in, or the mental state of whomever you are writing about.
I have become distracted. This is just general stuff and doesn't pertain to structured poetry any more than it pertains to free verse, or prose for that matter!
Let me just close by saying that I recognize formal modes of poetry, or poetry that is metered, and maybe rhymes, is a constraint, but it is one I put on willingly and even happily. I like writing within defined parameters. I like the challenge of trying to do a villanelle or a Petrarchan sonnet. I think people who write formal poetry do it t because they like it, not because they want to sound like someone else, or as a cover for having little to say.
In any case, I think you would enjoy an essay by the poet Mary Karr, called, "Against Decoration". It was included in her book, Viper Rum, which I have. It was quite a few years back, but she takes formal poetry to task and does a rippingly good job of it, even taking on a major poet like James Merrill. I think you can find the essay online somewhere.
More later..
