World Class Poetry Blog

Poetic Conventions Should
Be Shunned
11 March 2008, the poet @ 3:18 pm

The final principle of Millennial Poetics, that conventions should be shunned, is almost identical to Principle No. 2, that there is no room for prejudice in poetry. The difference is one of angle of perception. Whereas prejudice refers to an internal reality within the poet, convention refers to an external force upon the poet. It can be stated “Let no one enforce their own prejudices upon you,” or “Rules made by others are not applicable to oneself.” It is time to set the poet free from external conventions that make no sense.

These conventions arise from various fronts. One poet does not like long poems. Well, that’s fine, but does that mean Paterson, The Iliad, Paradise Lost, Inferno, The Aeneid, and other long poems, particularly epic poems, are wrong? Every poet is welcome to his own prejudices, though I don’t see why a poet should limit herself by them, but no poet should be allowed to foist those prejudices upon others. The poet who prefers short poems to long poems has no right to require that all poets write short poems. Nor does the poet who prefers epics have a right to require that all poets write epics.

In my short life I’ve encountered the following prejudices, all of which I consider irrational, that other poets have tried to impose upon others:

• No rhymes - Early on as a poet, in the 1980s, I encountered this prejudice, which was widely held among my generation (and still is). Someone decided that rhymes were out. Period. It was also during this time that New Formalism began to take off as a school. Obviously, it was a backlash against the irrational prejudice of the anti-rhyme crowd. The New Formalists insisted that poetry should adhere to the established forms, including rhyme. I take issue with both sides. Poetry is a broader matter than the inclusion or exclusion of one element. Whether or not a poem includes the element of rhyme should depend on the poet, the form chosen, subject matter, and the rules set forth by the poem itself.
• All lines should begin with a lower case letter unless it begins a sentence - Why? For hundreds of years poets began each line with a capital letter. Why, all of a sudden, should that change? Admittedly, some poems are hard to read because capital letters at the beginning of the lines make them so. But that does not apply across the board. Again, this is an irrational prejudice that has to go. Whether or not a letter is capitalized should depend on the poet, his preferences, form, subject matter, and other elements of craft.
• Poems should fit on one page - I don’t get this one. A poem should be as long as necessary to be complete, but no longer than it needs to be to say what it has to say. If that means a poem must be 5,000 lines in length then that is the length of the poem. If it means a poem is only three lines long then that’s how long the poem should be.
• No soul - I once met a publisher who ran a poetry journal and refused to publish any poem that used the word “soul.” That’s his right, of course. He can do whatever he wants with his journal, but why would a publisher, or a poet, limit himself? Furthermore, why impose an irrational poetic upon everyone you encounter? Yes, there are other words to use for soul, but they may not be the right word. The word “soul” means a particular thing and it bears significant meaning to American culture, so why refuse the word its natural power? Soul or no soul, it should be the choice of each individual poet and his poem.

There are other prejudices, of course. I’m sure there are some that I’ve never heard of. I do not subscribe to them. There are no rules in poetry. If there are, they should be broken. And not only should be broken, but they should be broken with a long middle finger extended.

Poets are the most unconventional people I’ve ever known. Why then should we disgrace our profession by inventing conventions that should not be? All conventions should be shunned; prejudice has no place in poetics. Preferences, yes; prejudices, no. All convention must go.

Millennial Poetics Review
Let’s review the 9 principles of poetics:

1. Craft is of utmost importance - Poets cannot, and must not, forget craft. This is the crown of the principles. Without craft, there is no poetry. It is the beginning of all things poetic. Craft should never be ignored. It should be pursued relentlessly.
2. There is no room for prejudice - Poets must end all prejudice with regard to craft. The elements are all equal. Which one applies to a particular poem or a particular sentence or line depends on the poet’s knowledge of craft and skill in employing that knowledge.
3. Form is just another element of craft - Form is not the most important thing, nor is it so unimportant that it should be ignored altogether. Form is simply one more element of craft. No more. It should be considered along with the other elements. In some ways, form determines the other elements, but in other ways, it does not. A sonnet, for instance, is not a sonnet if it does not adhere to the 14-line rule or rhyme scheme. A haiku is not a haiku if it does not follow the 5-7-5 syllabic pattern. Apart from the necessary enforcements, form should be considered as equal with all the other elements of craft.
4. Creativity and craft go hand in hand - A poet must exercise creativity. Don’t just write poems that follow a rigid form and do not tap into imagination. Make them unique in some way. Employ new elements never thought of. Create new forms, modify old forms, establish a new rubric. A poet cannot be a poet without imagination. Creativity and craft go hand in hand.
5. No subject is taboo - Every poem has a subject and all subjects are good for poetry. Nothing is taboo.
6. There is no such thing as language that is too archaic - This could fall under the shunning of convention, but I separate it from convention because it deals with poetic language and language is an inherent art of poetry. Poets should use the language that is most appropriate for the poem. If a poem requires the use of words or language that is out of use due to subject matter, form, and other elemental considerations then archaic language can be appropriate. It is a poetic choice of the author.
7. All poems are individuals - All poems are individuals and as such should be judged by their individual merits.
8. There is no acceptable method to writing poetry - There are no formulas for writing poetry. Poetics is an art, not a science. The craft of poetry requires a thought process, not formulaic assertions. Methods do not work. Poets who are looking for a method are forgetting the craft.
9. All convention should be shunned - Unless poets take craft seriously and shun convention of all sorts, we will keep seeing the same things over and over again. Poetry will lose its meaning if poets get too complacent, forget about craft, put method over creativity, and choose prejudice and convention over the study of craft. All poetics should be placed under the crown of craft and convention should be shunned at all cost.

Writing Poetry Is A Craft,
There Is No Acceptable Method
10 March 2008, the poet @ 9:22 pm

In this series on Millennial Poetics, we’ve covered a broad range of topics. So far we’ve discussed:

1. Craft is of utmost importance
2. There is no room for prejudice
3. Form is just another element of craft
4. Creativity and craft go hand in hand
5. No subject is taboo
6. There is no such thing as language that is too archaic
7. All poems are individuals
8. There is no acceptable method to writing poetry
9. All convention should be shunned

No Single Method Will Do
There is no acceptable method to writing poetry. One can’t design a mathematical formula, there is no algorithm that will generate the perfect form, and one can’t follow a recipe to arrive at the best poem for your genre. Writing poetry is an art, not a science. There is no metaphor-to-idea ratio or a certain number of verbs to nouns formula. Such things tend to take away rather than add to a poet’s creativity.

But that doesn’t mean that one can’t generate excellent poems by following a routine or adding ritual to your writing time. There is nothing wrong with having a favorite location or time to write. Many writers wake up early and compose their poems before work. Others write just before going to bed. Some poets write at lunch break while at work. Whatever works for you is acceptable.

Writing poetry is a skill. Like any skill, it can be developed. That development takes place in practice, through exercises, in discussions with other poets about technique, and through workshops where a poet can receive valuable feedback from other poets who will read your poem as both a writer and a reader. Non-poets are incapable of that. They can read a poem and tell you whether they like it or not, but most non-poets are not able to pick your poem apart and read it as a writer in order to tell you whether your structure is effective or whether your metaphors fall on their faces. It takes a certain amount of training to be able to see nuances in word and phrase interaction and to be able to discern the music of a poem and identify whether a stress is on the wrong foot or syllable. These are special skills that are developed over time. They do not happen naturally.

Since writing poetry is a skill and since every poem is an individual, there cannot be a method to doing it. There can only be craft, an ability to discern nuances in language and rhythm.

When a poet approaches his craft from the standpoint that his skill in being a poet is contingent on how hard he works at improving his skills, his knowledge of the techniques and devices available to him, and his ability to employ those techniques and devices then he will begin to write poetry that is worthy of publication and acknowledgment. The poet who attempts to write according to some method will only churn out mediocre verse at best.

A method presupposes that you can simply plug in an element and your poem is ready for consumption. That can never be the case. Poetry is not some mad lib game where you fill in the blank and all is well. It is a skill, a craft, a profession. There is no other way to see it if one wants to be a respected poet.

Move on to the next post in the series,
“Poetic Conventions Should Be Shunned”

All Poems Are Individuals
9 March 2008, the poet @ 9:18 pm

Just as all poets are individuals, so too are all poems individuals and should be judged on their own merits. Just because a certain poet has written 500 great poems doesn’t mean that she won’t pen the occasional bad one. Just because a bad poet has written and published over 1,000 lousy excuses for poetry doesn’t mean that he can’t finally produce a masterpiece. Every poem is an individual and must be judged on its own merits.

Millennial Poetics Review
Let’s review the 9 principles of Millennial Poetics one more time:

1. Craft is of utmost importance
2. There is no room for prejudice
3. Form is just another element of craft
4. Creativity and craft go hand in hand
5. No subject is taboo
6. There is no such thing as language that is too archaic
7. All poems are individuals
8. There is no acceptable method to writing poetry
9. All convention should be shunned

Today, we’re discussing the individuality of poems. If you haven’t read the earlier posts in this series then I encourage you to back up and read them all and return here when you are done.

All Poems Are Individuals
There is no sense in treating a body of work as a whole unless you are willing to look at each individual poem in the group to see how it fits in with the whole. This is true whether we are talking about a chapbook, a set of poems within a specific time period within a single poet’s life, an entire collection of poems from a poet’s life, a school or movement, or a set of poems surrounding a specific theme. There is value in analyzing poetry as a group and how that group is structured could depend on any number of variables, but no matter how the grouping is accomplished, every poem within the group is still an individual and should be analyzed on its own merits.

This may seem like it should go without saying and, for the most part, it does. But there is a tendency in poetics to see the whole and forget the singular. Poetic analysis can center around a single poet and so analysts discuss the poet’s contribution to literature, but then fail to discuss each individual poem. At the bottom of every group of poems is the whole set of individual poems within the group. Without the individual poems, there is no group.

This speaks to the liberty of poetics. The freedom of poetry analysts to judge poems on their own merits as individuals as opposed to complete bodies or groups of poems. Instead of judging the Beats as good or bad, or “homosexual misogynists”, we should judge each individual poet on his own then each poem by each poet on its own before arriving at a general conclusion regarding the entire school of Beats. There is a long range and variety of personalities to discuss with regard to that movement and many poets still living consider themselves Beats, or at least influenced by the Beats.

This principle is true and applies to all schools and movements and groups of poets. There are no exceptions. Instead of discussing the Nuyorican poets, why not discuss individual poets within the Nuyorican movement and read each poem by those poets as a single unit? The movement itself certainly has an identity, but that identity is wrapped up in the aggregation of the individual poets who identify with the group. Those poets in turn have individual poems that serve to define, or defy, or add to the aggregate definition of the group itself. It is possible for a poet to break with his or her poetic tradition and identify singularly with another group at a different point in his life, or with no group at all. This has been the case with Amiri Baraka, former poet laureate of New Jersey.

Why Is This Important?
Why should we concern ourselves with whether individual poems, or poets, are a unique identity unto themselves? I believe this is important because it speaks to the nature of poetics as well as the nature of the human condition. Poetry is an individual exercise, although some poets have joined together for collaborative projects. Even when poets collaborate, poetry is still handled at the individual level. There may be dialog, interaction, to be sure; but the internal reaction to what a poet writes and reads is an individual experience. That is true of the audience as well.

Because life is experienced as individuals living within community, and poetry is intrinsically about life, it is necessary to discuss poetry in the way in which it is experienced: As individuals within community. Community is not necessarily the closed community of poets. It is all of humanity. It is one’s identity group, one’s race, one’s local community, one’s nation or state, and one’s poetic school or movement. Community is all of those things, individually and collectively. The test for any poet is to write a poem that reflects the frame of reference with which he identifies. Does he do that well or does he fail? All poetics is centered around that question, but the question applies differently to each individual poem as it pertains to what it sets out to be as a poem.

A group of poems, and consequently a group of poets, cannot succeed in that endeavor. This can only be accomplished on a poem-by-poem basis. T.S. Eliot may have captured the zeitgeist of his era in “The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock” and “The Wasteland,” but did he do so in “Four Quartets”? The same poet who succeeds today can fail tomorrow. Just as a man in business may build a successful enterprise in one decade and fail to do so in another, so too can poets succeed in producing poems that attract an audience one day and fail in the same endeavor in another. This is the reason why the individuality of poems is a necessary component in Millennial Poetics. It could be said to be a central tenet. All poems must be analyzed on their own merits. Accept nothing less.

Read the next post in this series,
“Writing Poetry Is A Craft, There Is No Acceptable Method.”

Poetic Language Cannot Be Too Archaic
8 March 2008, the poet @ 6:12 pm

There’s no such thing as language too archaic for poetry. I know there will be some disagreement on this point, primarily from people who don’t understand the point I’m going to make any way. But if you’ve ever been in a poetry critique group or workshop and someone has said, “That word seems too archaic,” or “Modern poets don’t write like that,” then you’ll know where I’m coming from.

What people usually mean when they say a word is too archaic is that they don’t know what it means so you shouldn’t use it. You could use a brand new word and someone could just as well say, “That word is too intellectual; I don’t think you should use it.” Can you imagine that? “I don’t think you should use anthropomorphic. It’s too big a word.”

Whine, whine, whine.

Here’s a clue: Pick up a dictionary. Poets use words. Sometimes we use big words. Sometimes we use words that aren’t in use much longer. Archaic to a non-poet means something like “bobby socks.” Since people don’t wear bobby socks any more, it’s too archaic. It shouldn’t be used.

Any word in the English language, past, present, or future is fair game. The only issue is whether a particular word is the right word choice for a particular poem based on tone, voice, style, subject matter, etc. That said, there are two poetry terms that every poet needs to be familiar with.

• Onomatopoeia - Onomatopoeia should not be confused with archaic, or ancient, usage. This poetry term signifies a word that poets use to illustrate a sound. The word itself sounds like the sound it’s supposed to signify. For instance, squish is a word that sounds like squish, the sound your boots make when they step in a mud puddle. It has nothing to do with archaic language, but it is a poetic technique that uses odd words to make a point. Language, or word play, is the fairground of poets. The cool thing about onomatopoeia is that you can make up words, and if people don’t understand what the words that you make up mean then you were either ineffective in portraying the effect you were going for or they just don’t understand the poetic technique you are employing. You can fix the first problem, but the second problem isn’t yours to fix.
• Anachronism - An anachronism may actually have something to do with archaic usage of words. It could also be anything that is misplaced in time. For instance, a medieval knight that whips out a cigarette lighter to light the fuse of an artillery gun is anachronistic. That could be a useful effect in a poem, but to employ it successfully, it has to make sense. A serious love poem that involves a medieval knight in the 21st century may not make much sense, but that doesn’t mean that some poet couldn’t pull it off successfully. Maybe it’s satire and the knight is there for comic effect. Poetic techniques that involve archaic uses of language are permissible if they make sense for the poem based on tone, style, voice, subject matter, form, and other poetic elements.

Other poetic techniques may be useful as well. Suppose a poet were to use a metaphor comparing a 21st century idea that people are familiar with with a historic artifact or piece of equipment that is no longer in use. The Internet is like Gutenberg’s press would be an example of that. Of course, Gutenberg’s press is an ancient piece of equipment. Does it belong in a poem? Maybe; maybe not. If it doesn’t, it isn’t because it’s ancient and no longer in use, but it would be because it just doesn’t fit in the poem that the poet is trying to place it in. That’s really the most important thing.

I’ve met poets who say they don’t like it when people use the word “O” or “Oh” at the beginning of their lines and stanzas. That’s not the way people write any more. Shakespeare used the word effectively, as did many of his contemporaries. At one time, that was the way everyone wrote. People don’t write that way any more. The poetry is more conversational and consistent with the way that most people in our society think and use language. That doesn’t mean that these expressions do not have their place in poetry. I’d be judicious in putting an “O” or an “Oh” in a poem, but I wouldn’t necessarily rule it out completely because of some modern prejudice. I would take special pains to make sure that if I did use it that it wasn’t done in the same way that people today are familiar with. I wouldn’t want to remind anyone of John Donne in a negative way. I’d want people to think I was doing something original, and if a poet can’t do that, no matter what technique he uses, then he shouldn’t be doing what he’s doing.

Archaic language should not be ruled out. But it should be done in a manner that makes sense for a particular poem, a particular voice, a particular style. Perhaps you want to write a lyric ballad about a French troubadour being wooed by a dominant chain-mail wearing courtesan/warrior in the court of Marie Antoinette. Let’s say you want your poem to be a sestina. Well, you might very well use language of that era because it is appropriate for the subject matter. You must also consider voice. Whose voice will that poem be told in? The troubadour’s? The courtesan’s? Marie Antoinette’s? A court jester’s? A friend of the courtesan’s commanding officer, who thinks she is a man in the French army? All kinds of things can take place in a poem. You have to work out the details and use language that is appropriate for your narrative.

To summarize, there is no such thing as language that is too archaic, too futuristic, too (fill in the blank). It is either effective or ineffective, appropriate or inappropriate to your poem. Think along those lines and your language should speak like the song of angels.

Gaudeamus: A Poem That Celebrates The Taboo
7 March 2008, the poet @ 11:32 pm

Because I felt that my last installment of the Millennial Poetics series was a bit incomplete I was prepared to expound on it a little more in this blog post. Instead, I’m going to reprint a poem from a poet I heard as a feature at a poetry reading tonight.

If you’ll remember, the last post in the series dealt with taboos. In poetry, there aren’t any. I approached the subject from the perspective of the audience-poet relationship. The poet must keep his or her audience in mind. But there really is more to it than that. I stuck to the extremes of sex and religious fervor because those two extremes seem to be at odds with each other in today’s world - at least in Puritan America. But taboos are not all sexual, nor are they all religious. Some taboos are emotional, or psychological. Others surround death. From culture to culture, what is considered taboo may vary and therefore it is difficult to discuss taboos as comprehensively as I’d like to.

The poet I’m about to recite is a Latin scholar. A former teacher of Latin, to be precise. I have heard her read in limited doses, but tonight, for the first time, I heard a full presentation as she was the featured poet in a poetry reading in Gettysburg, Pa. The event takes place every first Friday and is hosted by a friend of mine, Dana Larkin Sauers.

Today’s discussion, however, centers around Marilyn Tenenoff. She is a very intelligent and passionate soul whose poetry comes alive on the stage. Her readings are vibrant, passionate, and full of verve. On the page, her poems come alive as well. I will be writing a full review of Marilyn’s book, Watch the Watering Can, but for now I want to reprint one poem:

De Brevitate Vitae

I rage autistic. Gaudeamus.
Soapbox schizophrenic. Gaudeamus.
Let the Dead be Dead.
Manic Hyde Park. Gaudeamus.
Protons clap like billiard balls.
So much tumult. Gaudeamus.
So much Gaudeamus noise.
Crows caw. Cicadas hum.
Owls hoot. Coyotes howl.
Gaudeamus.
Human voices. Brass band.
Cymbals crash. Bugles blare. Tubas boom.
Gaudeamus.
Microbes shriek. Gaudeamus.
Cosmos fever
spikes my skull like radio
and bends the Gaudeamus rim of Time,
and Gaudeamus I say Gaudeamus.

Lightning flares on window glass.
Thunder shakes the earth.
Gaudeamus. Gaudeamus.
Wind makes horizontal signs
and I defy it all.
I frolic like a gopher.
Gaudeamus. Never mind
the predators that hover in the sky.
I savor Gaudeamus
all the pungent sour apples.
Horseradish and licorice.
Jalapeno peppers. Gaudeamus.
And the scarlet raspberries
that ripen in the field.
I am winning. Gaudeamus.
I say Gaudeamus Igitur.

Sparks flare. Embers burn.
They snap and sizzle
right in front of me.
Gaudeamus I say Gaudeamus.
Moon River rolls along
and so do I.
Gaudeamus. Gaudeamus.
Hang the neon streamers.
just to say I am alive.
Paint the walls burnt umber
to Gaudeamus say that I exist,
to say that I have overcome.
I Gaudeamus breathe.
The particles of life
smash against my skin.
I smell the forest orchid scent.
I laugh. I cry. I dance.
I Gaudeamus whirl,
a dervish in a trance.
I scream, I win,
through holocausts of tears.
Gaudeamus I say Gaudeamus.

This force of life is warm. It is intense.
I wear it like a costume
in a Gaudeamus opera.
I wrap it round my shoulders
like a Gaudeamus shawl.
Gaudeamus I say Gaudeamus.
I spit in the eye of Death.
Let the Dead be Dead.
On this blazing Gaudeamus day
in a frenzy of fire,
in riotous desire,
I fornicate.
I Gaudeamus fornicate
on the graves
of the dear dear Dead.

The Poet Blasphemes The Dead!!

When Marilyn Tenenoff finished reading that poem this evening, Gary Ciocco, another friend of mine, turned and whispered to me, “That’s blasphemy, isn’t it? That’s blasphemy.”In contemplation, I nodded assent. Indeed, I believe it is. But is it permissible?I think to understand and appreciate this poem in all its nuances, you have to understand the origin of the phrase “Gaudeamus” and its associative counterpart, “De Brevitate Vitae,” the poem’s title. The latter means, “on the brevity (or shortness) of life.” The former means “let us rejoice.”

According to the Wikipedia entry for “Gaudeamus Igitur,” the first words to a Latin song by the title, “De Brevitate Vitae,” the lyrics are a bacchanalian celebration of the fact that we will all one day die. The song references sex and death throughout, either in jest or irony, but the intent is to “spit in the eye of Death.” That is, we claim victory over death. The sentiment is the pagan equivalent to the Christian doctrine of Christ’s victory over death as expressed in the words of St. Paul, “Grave, where is thy victory? Death where is thy sting?”

“De Brevitate Vitae” is sometimes known as “The Gaudie,” but whatever it is called, it is almost always ribald and encased in revelry. One could say it is the reverse expression of Carpe Diem. Instead of “seize the day” for life is awesome and should be taken like a bull by the horns, it is more like “death is not so great and has no power over life” so let us dance and drink and fornicate on the graves of the “dear dear dead.” One could just as well say, “Fuck the afterlife!”

Marilyn Tenenoff’s poem is the perfect example of what I mean by no taboos. Poetry is an expression of a point of view. Agree with it or not, judge it by its poetic merits. Tenenoff’s “De Brevitate Vitae” has a raw, uncontrollable passion. It sets its own music. The poem moves to a crescendo as the tension is built up from the first word all the way up to “This force of life is warm.” Then, the poet masterfully takes her reader by the hand and leads him to the poem’s logical and grand finale, that finishing act, the terrible, blasphemous end, where livers and lovers do the dirty deed on the homes of the dear departed. In a frenzy of fire, the fornication isn’t so much dirty as it is a celebration. We’re not dead yet, so let us rejoice.

Read the next installment in the Millennial Poetics series

In Poetry, No Subject Is Taboo
6 March 2008, the poet @ 8:06 pm

To paraphrase Walt Whitman, the father of American poetry, the dirtiest poem of all is the expurgated poem. This gets to the heart of today’s post: No subject in poetry is too taboo.

Before I move on to the fifth part of the Millennial Poetics series, let’s review parts 1-4:

• Poetic Craft Is Of The Utmost Importance
• Millennial Poetics: There Is No Room For Prejudice In Poetry
• Form Is Just Another Element Of Poetic Craft
• Creativity And Poetic Craft Go Hand In Hand

The 9 principles of Millennial Poetics are recounted below:

1. Craft is of utmost importance
2. There is no room for prejudice
3. Form is just another element of craft
4. Creativity and craft go hand in hand
5. No topic is taboo
6. There is no such thing as language that is too archaic
7. All poems are individuals
8. There is no acceptable method to writing poetry
9. All convention should be shunned

Poetry Has No Taboos

It is an American tradition in poetry to drag filth out of the dung heap of passion. Walt Whitman did his part in singing the body electric. For him to praise the beauties of manly love and to speak of shooting jets of manhood during his day was to effectively turn poetic tradition on its ear - at least, American poetic tradition. It was a total break from anything that came before. And his legacy lives today in the poetry of many of our contemporaries and forebears. Poets from various traditions look to Whitman for influence, and rightly so.

There is room for all kinds of poets in the Millennial School. From the most pious religious verse to the most erotic love poetry, from purity and chastity to S&M, poetry is not, as John Donne believed, all about truth and beauty. It is about life and those who live it. That means the ugly is as poetic as the beautiful, the perverted can be as accessible as the pure, hate is as sublime as love. The only true poetic measure is effectiveness - does the poem move its audience?

Aristotle’s theory of catharsis is a principle for all time. Poetry that is boring dies. Poetry that inspires, incites, thrills, shocks, draws adoration, coerces a tear, forces a laugh - that is poetry that lives forever.

Poetry must, above all else, elicit a reaction. If it does not then it isn’t poetry worth reading. Essential to that motive is the poem’s audience. I would not expect the most devoutly religious to be moved by a Marquis-de-Sade-meets-Baudelaire type poem of the 21st century, nor would I expect swingers and polyamorists into bondage and discipline to read Gerard Manley Hopkins through the lens of John Wesley revisited. The audience must be seen as a part of the poem. Each poem must be written with its audience in mind, but the poetic principles are the same. Whether one is writing for one’s church group or one’s sex club, the elements of craft are the same. Those don’t change. Subject matter is simply another element of craft, like form.

When it comes to choosing a subject for poetry, poets must open their minds and their hearts. Don’t be staid. Life in the 21st century is complex, fast, technological, and vibrant. Poets must write poetry that reflects the culture of their era. Of course, there is a vast difference between the culture of the Western world in the 21st century and the third world of the same time. That doesn’t mean, however, that poetry in one culture can’t be appreciated by an audience in another. It does mean that a poet must speak from a vantage point - a unique vantage that is all his own. If he is effective in presenting his point of view through a uniqueness of voice then no matter what his subject is and no matter who is audience is intended to be, there will be a crossover effect. That crossover won’t be total or universal, but it will be there. And that only further expands the influence of that poet and his verse.

There are no taboos in poetry. Form, subject matter, elements of craft, they all work together toward either an effective presentation or an ineffective presentation. It is up to the poet’s skill, experience, and determination to make the poem speak to its audience.

Continue on to the next part in the Millennial Poetics series

Creativity And Poetic Craft
Go Hand In Hand
5 March 2008, the poet @ 5:54 pm

Continuing the Millennial Poetics series, here’s a recap:

• Poetic Craft Is Of The Utmost Importance
• Millennial Poetics: There Is No Room For Prejudice In Poetry
• Form Is Just Another Element Of Poetic Craft

The nine principles of poetics are:

1. Craft is of utmost importance
2. There is no room for prejudice
3. Form is just another element of craft
4. Creativity and craft go hand in hand
5. No topic is taboo
6. There is no such thing as language that is too archaic
7. All poems are individuals
8. There is no acceptable method to writing poetry
9. All convention should be shunned

Today we’re on creativity. As the title of this post suggests, creativity and poetic craft go hand in hand.

Creativity And Poetic Craft Go Hand In Hand
Einstein said that imagination is more important than intelligence. That quote epitomizes the essence of Millennial poetics. Creativity and craft are nearly synonymous. Imagination is the poet’s brains.

Poets do not report the news. We improve it. Too many poets try to “capture the moment” or tell it like it happened.” That is almost always the wrong way to approach a poem. It is much more exciting to tell what could have happened or what should have happened. The poet who can take what did happen and enhance it with metaphor, hyperbole, allusion, or other poetic elements is the poet who will go down in history with a legacy. It isn’t what happened that is important in poetry. It is what the poet can make his readers believe happened that is intrinsically important.

This doesn’t mean, however, that creativity is simply a reference to imagination with regard to the content of a poem. It also is a reference to imagination with regard to the language of a poem. Presentation is every bit as important as content, though content and presentation are in reality intimately connected. It is the poet’s creative skills that pull all of this together.

Instead of just presenting facts or lists, the creative poet must employ techniques and devices that illustrate the facts. Information is not poetry, but good poetry does convey information.

A poet can be creative in any number of ways. E.E. Cummings was being creative when he employed punctuation in unconventional ways. Walt Whitman was being creative when he invented a new American form. Gerard Manley Hopkins was being creative when he took an existing form - the sonnet - and added his own signature mark, an odd metrical structure he called “sprung rhythm.” Allen Ginsberg was being creative when he stood naked in a bookstore and railed against the establishment. Mark Smith was being creative when he introduced the world to poetry slams in Chicago in the 1980s. Now it is time for a new form, a new creativeness to emerge in the world of poetry. I see that creativity being birthed this very moment as poets invent new forms of multimedia presentation with Flash and other visually-oriented video poetry such as this one from Billy Collins:

Creativity is the one human characteristic that has no limits. Poets are among human professions that have creativity in abundance. We should use it. It is time to take poetry to the next level of achievement - beyond slams, beyond spoken word, beyond mere word play, and beyond the hard core political rant that seems be chic among the psychologically disenfranchised and economically downtrodden. The next revolution in poetics will be a worldwide movement to communicate in digital images. The question will be, will poets working in that form be creative enough?

CAVEAT: Just as I finished this post I went searching for videos on YouTube. I subscribe to any videos tagged “poetry.” And wouldn’t you know that I found one. It was a marketing video for this website, which is another example of the type of creative poetry video I discussed above. A great resource for poets working with visual images.

Read the next installment in the series, “In Poetry, No Subject Is Taboo.”

Form Is Just Another Element Of Poetic Craft
4 March 2008, the poet @ 10:02 pm

This is the third part in the Millennial Poetics series. Parts 1 and 2 can be read prior to this one at

Poetic Craft (Millennial Poetics, Part 1)
and No Room For Prejudice (Millennial Poetics, Part 2)

Return here when you finish reading the first two posts. The rest of the series of posts on Millennial Poetics include:

1. Craft is of utmost importance
2. There is no room for prejudice
3. Form is just another element of craft
4. Creativity and craft go hand in hand
5. No topic is taboo
6. There is no such thing as language that is too archaic
7. All poems are individuals
8. There is no acceptable method to writing poetry
9. All convention should be shunned

Form Is Just Another Element Of Poetic Craft
Formalist poets tend to place form at the helm of the poetic pyramid. As their moniker suggests, poetry should not be written outside of form. Free verse poets, on the other hand, tend to shun form at all costs. In fact, with few exceptions, postmodern poets wouldn’t be caught dead writing within a form. Millennial poetics rejects both extremes.

Form is not the most important aspect of craft, nor is it a bane. It is simply another element of craft to be considered. Like rhyme, meter, assonance, metaphor, and other poetic elements in the arsenal of the well-versed poet, form is one more consideration.

The poet must select a form for every poem he writes. There is no such thing as rejection of form. Free verse poets are writing in form. It’s just that the form is a non-traditional form. The form is free verse. Prose poets are writing in prose form. Many poets do not see free verse and prose as poetic forms, but they are. They are forms unto themselves. Therefore, every poet writes in form and every poem has a form.

The difference between a good poet and a bad poet, or an effective poet and an ineffective poet, is that one is conscious of form and chooses the form out of careful consideration and the other is not conscious of form at all. The poet must be aware of form at all times and choose the form that is best for the poem. That is not as easy as it sounds.

The poet should not be afraid to experiment. Learning new forms is encouraged. Modifying existing forms is also allowed. There is no reason why every sonnet must adhere to the Petrarchan rhyme scheme. What if you took the sonnet and modified it so that the metrical structure and rhyme scheme appeared as

a
b
b
ab
a
a
ba
b

and instead of calling it a sonnet you called it a sonnette because it is a shortened version of the traditional sonnet while adhering to the basic structure?Poetic Form Has No Limitations
There are no limitations to form and structure in poetry. The only rule is that it must make sense within the self-established rules of the poem that is being written. If you try to write a sonnet and you get stuck, try to write a sestina instead. Or if you are not satisfied with how your rondeau turned out, rewrite it as a villannelle.Sometimes, subject matter determines your form. A limerick obviously would not be a limerick if it had 24 lines and didn’t rhyme. But you can take a limerick and add a line then call it something else. Why not? Every form at some point was someone’s invention. The first person to ever write a sonnet paved a new trail. Why couldn’t you pave one as well?

Let your poem speak in its own voice. Listen to that voice. Your poem may be wanting to go in a certain direction and may naturally lead you to places you never thought you’d go. Many poets try to force their poems into the forms that they know, but they do not have the experience and skill necessary to make it fit. That doesn’t mean you can’t write a good poem. It just means that you need to study more and listen to the poem’s voice. Every poem has its own voice and story to be told. The experienced poet knows when to listen to that and let the poem write itself.

Poetry is, above all things, experimentation. It is playing with words. It is taking what is not there and molding it into something that will always be there. Let the reader find their own poem in yours. Every idea does not need to be spelled out completely. Leave something to your readers’ imaginations, but give them enough clues to be able to figure out what you are trying to do in your poem. The best poems, not matter what form they are written in, get better with each subsequent reading. If you listen to your poems then you will find that yours grow into a life of their own within the forms that they choose for themselves.

Read the next post in the series

Millennial Poetics: There Is No Room For Prejudice In Poetry
3 March 2008, the poet @ 10:57 pm

Last night I posted the first in a nine-part series related to the Millennial School of Poetics. The principles I am discussing are reprinted below:

1. Craft is of utmost importance
2. There is no room for prejudice
3. Form is just another element of craft
4. Creativity and craft go hand in hand
5. No topic is taboo
6. There is no such thing as language that is too archaic
7. All poems are individuals
8. There is no acceptable method to writing poetry
9. All convention should be shunned

If you haven’t read that first post then I encourage you to start there. That post dealt with the necessity of craft. You can read about the necessity of craft here then return to this post after you have started with the beginning.

There Is No Room For Prejudice In Poetry
There is no room for prejudice in poetry. By prejudice I do not mean bigotry. I am not referring to any sort of racial pride, nationalism, misogyny, or homophobia. This is not about social prejudice. I am talking about poetic schools of thought, movements, ideas.

Poetry is first and foremost an intellectual pursuit. Poetics is a branch of philosophy. I do not mean that in any esoteric sense. I am simply saying that poetics requires a process of thought.

Poetics has many definitions, but the one I like the most comes from Answers.com:

1. Literary criticism that deals with the nature, forms, and laws of poetry.
2. A treatise on or study of poetry or aesthetics.
3. The practice of writing poetry; poetic composition.

What I will be dealing with in this series is the first definition - literary criticism. While this definition is succinct and to the point, I prefer principles instead of laws because laws imply that there is no reason to break them, that doing so involves consequences. Principles on the other hand are more flexible and are applied differently according to the circumstances. Therefore, I deal in principles.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle was perhaps the first person to build a philosophy around the nature of poetics. He created a whole philosophy around the idea of poetic craft and one of the principles that I learned from Aristotle is that poetry, or art, should create catharsis. A catharsis is a cleansing of the emotions, a purifying, a purgation. Note that this catharsis is to take place within the reader, or the audience. It is not a catharsis for the writer.

That is not to say that the writer of poetry does not feel, or should not feel. Rather, it speaks to the nature of the relationship between the poet and his audience. The poet should create the atmosphere that leads to the cathartic moment for the reader. In order to do that properly, the poet must put thought and action into the process. It is a process of deliberative thinking.

So how does the poet learn to do that? Does it come naturally? Is it something that can be learned?

I do not believe it is natural. I do believe it can be learned. And if it can be learned then it can be taught. The poet must learn how to think. She must learn how to think about craft. She must develop her own personal philosophy of poetics. But to do that most effectively, she must first learn how others thought about craft. What were their philosophies of poetics? The poet learns from other poets, other craftsmen, other philosophers of the craft. That is how learning has always been done and it is no different with the craft of poetry.

How Poetic Mentoring Is Done
Poetic mentoring can, though it need not necessarily be done this way, but it can be done in person through one on one teaching sessions. It can be done in groups through workshops and poetry exercises. It can also be done through time, from one poet to another through the reading of poetry written in the past and through correspondence from other poets. I don’t think there is any one best way. I think a combination of ways is best, but there must be some mentoring and discussion regarding the elements of poetry.

Contemporary poets rely mostly on peer mentoring. That is, they learn from their poetic equals. That is not a bad way to pick up new skills and influences, but it is bad to rely on that method alone. This is like putting a group of first graders into a room alone and asking them to be on their best behavior. It isn’t possible.

Poetry must be read. Not just contemporary poetry, but all poetry. Too many contemporary poets couldn’t recite a handful of lines from poetry of the past. This is absolutely necessary for the development of a proper poetic conscience. The learning of the craft of poetry begins with the intimate familiarization with the masters who have gone before us, from Homer to Bukowski.

I chose these names on purpose. Homer represents the most ancient of poets. He is the epic hero poet. He is the poet of formalism, of lyricism. How far apart in style and voice are Homer and Bukowksi, not just divided by time, but by philosophy as well. Bukowski is modern, not formalist at all. His poetry is the poetry of the downtrodden, the cynical. His narratives are written in free verse. Far from epic heroism, the poetry of Buk can best be summarized as the heart sputterings of a tragic anti-hero. Yet we can learn from him.

Even the most high brow of poets can learn from Charles Bukowski. Garage poets can learn from Homer, or Chaucer, even Milton. There is no poet out of reach from us. From Basho to Sappho, there is something to learn. The poet who reads Khalil Gibran should also read Ezra Pound. You don’t have to like what you read, but you should read it anyway. As much can be learned from bad poetry, or poetry that you don’t like, as can be learned from good poetry.

This is what I mean when I say there should be no prejudice in poetry. The poet who is serious about studying craft should study all of craft. Feminist poetics is no more worthy, or no less, of our study than Romantic poetics. The Victorians can teach us as much as the Beats. Japanese nature poetry is beautiful, but it isn’t the highest beauty. It is another beauty. The poet who studies all craft and schools of poetics with the intent to cull from them what he can in terms of seriousness of skill will have the most tools available to him in every poem he writes. The more you know, the better able you are to find that right turn of phrase or to pick the proper device when time comes to make your poetry stand out. If you simply write from the gut, off the cuff, pouring out your heart, with no thought as to where you poetry is going or what its purpose is then all you’ll ever get are murmurs. Poetry of the highest order must strive to be something more than a mere murmur.

Poetry and craft go hand in hand. Poetry and prejudice do not. It is time for serious poets to embrace every school - from the Homeric to the Postmodern. You do not have to employ all the devices that you learn from each school, but you should be familiar with them. Study them with the idea that you can use them if you need to. The more tools you have at your disposal, the more likely you are to create poetry that is readable, accessible, and lovable.

Read Part 3 of the Millennial Poetics Series,
“Form Is Just Another Element Of Poetic Craft.”

Poetic Craft Is Of The
Utmost Importance
2 March 2008, the poet @ 7:28 pm

On February 26, I wrote a list of principles that serve to define my own thoughts on the craft of poetics. I call it the Millennial School. I’d like to reprint those principles for you now:

1. Craft is of utmost importance
2. There is no room for prejudice
3. Form is just another element of craft
4. Creativity and craft go hand in hand
5. No topic is taboo
6. There is no such thing as language that is too archaic
7. All poems are individuals
8. There is no acceptable method to writing poetry
9. All convention should be shunned

I’m going to cover each of these points one at a time and let them stand on their own. Today we’ll cover “Craft is of utmost importance.” What do I mean by that?

Poetic Craft Is Of Utmost Importance
It might seem that it should go without saying and I agree, it should. But it doesn’t. The reason is because postmodern writers have really gotten away from craft. Academics and poetry workshop leaders stopped discussing craft years ago in an effort to make poetry “more accessible.” Instead of teaching young poets to hone in on the elements, poetry workshop leaders instead told their students to just write what they feel or to put their thoughts down and worry about editing or revising later. As a result, many poets learned to finish a poem after the first draft or if they did any revision at all it was simply to make their free verse expressions freer or more prosaic. Craft was not essential.

Poets quit studying previous schools and poets to learn about craft and instead just read them and were influence by them as readers rather than as writers. When I took my first poetry workshop in the 1980s, my poetry workshop instructor at the University of Texas at Dallas was a feminist poet by the name of Sheryl St. Germain. My first poem for the workshop, a poem based loosely on Sharon Olds’ Satan Says, but primarily was simply an unleashing of my passion with craft coming into play only with a limited knowledge of it. It was there, but I was quite unfamiliar with poetry at the time and therefore any craft that I brought to the poem was merely an accident or a carefully thought out fluke.

I’ve always been attentive to the sounds of words. Poetry came naturally to me then and over the years I’ve developed my style by studying craft more than just writing stuff down. Sheryl told me mid-way through her workshop that she didn’t know what I was doing but whatever it was, it was working. That threw me into whirling crisis because I had nowhere to turn to help me hone the craft that I was trying to obtain. I only had my own instincts. Sheryl could not help me because she didn’t know what I was doing. I learned from that that I had to rely upon my own instincts and personal studies, but that is not the best way.

One would not expect a martial artist to work alone and learn to become a black belt in his chosen style without a mentor. One would not expect any other professional in any profession at all to just learn through independent study and without some kind of guidance and mentoring or coaching from a more experienced and more knowledgeable craftsman, or tradesman. Why then should we expect that from poets?

Poetry is a craft. It should be studied as a craft. It should not be treated as a blank slab upon which to release bottled up emotions and closeted thoughts. Those can be useful, to be sure, but they must be sharpened by the flint stone of craft. Like a hunter sharpens his game knife, so too should a poet sharpen her skills through study, practice, and mentoring.

Craft is essential in poetry. If poets forget about the basics, the essentials, and simply write as if journaling one’s feelings and fantasies then all we’ll ever have is a series of rambling sensations. While that might entertain for a while, in the end it will only serve to make us lazy and to devalue the craft for future generations. Poetry is craft. Craft is poetry. The two go hand in hand.

The next installment of this series will be “There is no room for prejudice.” Please come back and join me as I cover this principle of poetics in more detail.

Read the next installment in this series,
“There Is No Room For Prejudice In Poetry.”