Eratosphere Forums - Metrical Poetry, Free Verse, Fiction, Art, Critique, Discussions Able Muse - a review of poetry, prose and art

Forum Left Top

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 08-02-2001, 08:52 AM
Ernest Ernest is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 42
Post

Rhyme & Reason

Consider this a polite question, a musing inquiry on the subject of rhyme. I post this so we can appreciate the various sides.

(Does a rhyme poem have pretty much the same obligation as the free verse poem, e.g., spontaneity, imagination, fresh language?)

The business of rhyme seems somewhat misunderstood, from my point of view. Rhyme for its own sake lacking much.

Schoolyard rhymes often infest early poetry or first drafts in particular. The cutout, monosyllabic familiar rhymes seem to dominate many poetry forums. What goes often neglected is the poem itself, the composition, its structure, flight, and seemingly imagination is overlooked, altogether engagement.

Some poets are fascinated by rhyme, not so much with creating a poem, or advancing the model. A horrible neglect seems to plague their verses, omission of the unities, gathering, etc.

Of course, simple rhymes can be used, but if the line that precedes the rhyme doesn't engage, if all the poet's energy, talent have gone into the rhyme then all else is neglected.

Rhyming is not easily accomplished. It's a feat of imagination and skill.

And when I see familiar rhymes, or those easily rendered, such ee-sound rhymes, (how many words end with ee-sounds?) it suggests almost that the whole business of rhyme is depreciated, greatly misunderstood.

As though rhyme is merely for making a like-sounds within a poem. (The balance of the verse, not rhyming, seems to be overlooked as a method of making music -- and the lyrical voice seems to be nonexistent.) And not for creating an inevitability for the poem -- as if the poem had seemingly always been in the world. Or should have a place there. Rhyme often lends that to a poem.

Rhymes should be not coincidental words in a poem, but vital words not just to execution of the poem, but the meaning of the poem. One of the ways to read rhyme is to read the poem without the rhyme. If the poem holds up for its imagination and lively qualities, then it might be a good one.

Rhymes should also be original rhymes, or words seldom rhymed. The trite rhymes that about at poetry forums are easily rendered. No real spontaneity seems to be strived after. So difficulty level is almost eliminated.

But to overlook all the mechanisms that go into a poem, heaping so much merit on getting the rhyme right seems incorrect.

I don't think I've ever told anyone not to rhyme. I've hinted against it, as it seems a cumbersome, precarious weight for any unskilled poet. Though it may serve often as good advice.

Rhyme is certainly a challenge. Not easily mastered as it depends so many other things.

A talent that astounds when used well. I recall being astounded at finding Auden occasionally using simple rhymes, and yet his ideas & thoughts that accompanied the simple rhymes engaged so thoroughly and deeply.

Auden makes it look so easy. Often poets are mesmerized into thinking his skill-level can be matched without much dedication and hard work.

I write light verse as well. But must readily admit I'm disappointed by the jokey poems with dull rhymes and soft voices.

The techniques employed often seem depleted, somehow lack of attention paid to technique, spontaneity, fresh images, originality. I tend to think poorly of verses written in sluggish, flabby language.

What we require from rhyme poetry should include imagination, fresh language. Jokes and funny anecdotes will just get so far. What we expect from rhyme poetry is that it contain those same rich qualities of unrhymed poetry.

The sluggish voice no matter how humorous is still sluggish.

And of course this strikes at the subject: Do we by our poor reading habits not recognize the difference between different levels of rhymed poetry. Should lower our expectations when reading rhymed poetry?

Say, not apply the usual requirements for poetry writing, e.g. imagination, fresh language. Or should we rigorously critique rhymed poetry, making careful note of its shortcomings.

Though the real topic is what do we expect from good rhyme?

Rhyme has many complex, fascinating sides. Judgment of the success or failure of a verse arrives from what criteria we impose.

I've learned that we read differently, each of us. We seek out in our poetry different things.

Our perceptions and what we expectations of poetry influence greatly our opinions. Some who read poetry like Robert Service wrote, observe in him a craftsman, a humorist of a time in which doggerel was judged somewhat favorably.

His gifts were appreciated by the general public. Albeit, he was scorned by critics for his work which they characterized as hokum, sentimentality, melodrama, artificiality.

By many, he's still that. A dull poet, somewhat tasteless; his hokey confections that public pudding. Occasionally funny, but often more a vaudeville act, the pantomime of the real poet. In short, not someone of any substantial gifts.

Perhaps one way to appreciate a poet like Robert Service might be to read for only story-value, all the while discounting the many varied high literary values, such as spontaneity, original rhyme-scheme, fresh ideas, insight, new images. In other words, lower out expectations for the writer?

Judgment of a poem would be based on an entirely different perceptions, expectations. It's almost as though by attempting to lower our expectations to the most common denominator we can somehow appreciate poor writing.

Close our eyes to impoverished, sluggish, dull, hokey poetry. As though by fall of such darkness, we can see better. By being ignorant we are made smart. By overlooking we gain insight.

This isn't a practice I would adopt. It sets up a mediocre standard in which many writers could share the same level of appreciation as Auden.

Suddenly, the lowbrow, middling poet such as Service, is observed as having similar qualities as much finer writers.

Albeit, there's a whole range of values in how various people critique rhyme. By excluding certain criteria from a critique, a poem can be judged as having merit. For some readers, rhyme shouldn't be judged for meaning, rather the sound it makes.

Unfortunately, for a critiquer to overlook the flaws of poems seems precarious. The rules of critiquing are perhaps reduced to little or nothing. Do we have to find a way of liking a poem? Is it rude to point out a poem's flaws? It's discourteous to say don't use cliches. Don't use ordinary rhymes. Don't write in dull images, lethargic language.

The result is a polite, if not empty critique. It's a form of self-deception. We think we assist the poet by flattery. A sort of self-imposed illiteracy is applied to magnify the poet. Congratulate the poet for being ordinary. Guarantee the success of poets by denying their failures. Creating the opportunity to celebrate the maudlin, cliched poems.

While I can understand some critiquers may enjoy the simple, firm, even predictable rhymes for their steadying effect, this may lead to low expectations from the poet. Indeed, one wishes when writing critiques to ask more of poets than poets are giving. Flattery seldom advances the talent of a writer.

Of course, I don't want poetry, rhymed or not to steady me. I want it to challenge my reading skills, my imagination; I want it to topple me. I want it to disrupt the prose-reading process. I want it to change my perceptions of the world. Change the way I see things. Make me feel things I've never felt before. Change language from its ordinary state to something extraordinary. Light a fire. Give me insight into things I never imagined. New worlds. I want the poem to discover things no one has ever thought existed. I want the poem to dream, and when it ends I want to feel like I've just experienced something extraordinary. That thing we call poetry. I approach poetry from a vigorous point of view. I like for its high energy, charm.

Yes, I can see how if someone was out of sorts they might not want to be so challenged, and Robert Service may afford in his predictable fashion some interest. Certainly not impose any unexpected items. But it's not poetry.

By heightened expectations we might be able to assist the poet in reaching a more substantial level of writing. This is my theory. If one critiques from meagerness, then meagerness satisfies. Actually meager will never satisfy. Acceptance of predictable rhymes would appear to be a too soft theory, one that would invite the Auden versus Robert Service analogy. Doggerel may often be the result.

Myself I don't enjoy rhyme for its predictability, a quality I associate with dullness, easy accessibility. I don't enjoy poetry that doesn't renew itself. And I include rhyme in that process.

Can sameness or predictability or low expectations entice publishers to accept our work? Might low expectations also manifest itself in predictable critiques? Do we want honest opinions from critiquers? Do we want critiquers to ask poets for only the most meager items?

Or should we expect them to do better?

The culprit would seem to always be low expectations. As though somehow we have to create from some vague bearings, yet unresolved, never to be resolved. Why we can't we just critique, expecting more from the poet and the rhymes, according to our expectations.

There is no universal template, other than avoidance of ordinariness and predictability, which is death to poetry, resulting in poor writing. Dull rhymes without engagement spoil the party.

The subject is how should we critique rhymed poetry? Should we be forgetful about intensity of expression? Need for a compressed voice? Deftness?

Should we include in our critiques of rhymed poetry the absence of risk-taking? Isn't one of the vital roles of poetry to take chances that prose doesn't? Is rhymed poetry exempt from taking chances?

What risks did Robert Service take? What risk is involved in writing melodrama with corny rhymes?

What happens if we don't have expectations from poets?

Do poets become more timid for critiquers' lack of expectations? What happens if we don't tell poets about their dull rhymes and images? If we read poorly will they write better?

Is a critique an unwarranted intrusion? Is it like a masked burglar sneaking through a half-cracked window into our house at night? Poking around in the closets? Pulling out drawers? Tapping the walls for hidden safes?

And what are the burglars/critiquers looking for, anyway? Fresh images? Compact voice? Imagination? Original rhyme scheme? Picturesque metaphors?

It's all a mystery. How do poets learn the requirements for good writing? If critiquers don't tell writers what they need to know how will they find out? Will it just dawn on them one day? Perhaps they're read our thoughts.

Better they should read our critiques.

Having differences, of course, is a natural state.

By listening to a multitude points of view, we learn the complexity of an issue. How a subject is interpreted differently by each person. How each person has their insight into things.

The experienced participant is one that comes prepared, focused on their purpose of why they came. Post a poem. Receive critiques. Give critiques. If a discussion arises, it's a time to contribute a point of view. And hear others state their opinions.

Reactions of those inexperienced on critique/discussion boards, however, occasionally might be resentment. They may feel horror and disbelief. As though they'd never encountered anyone who didn't agree with everything they said.

As part of a group we listen to each other. We learn. But we don't have to agree about everything.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 08-02-2001, 09:19 AM
Richard Wakefield Richard Wakefield is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Federal Way, Washington, USA
Posts: 1,664
Post

Ernest:
I suppose there's finally just taste, what we happen to like or not like, for reasons we can't pin down. For my taste, rhyme is very important. In a way the limited resources are part of the charm and challenge. Part of the business of poetry is bringing dead language back to life. I go to my trusty analogy with music: songs tend to conclude on the tonic or on one of two or three related notes, but mostly on the tonic. The drama of shape of a melody is pretty much a matter of rising or falling away from and back to the tonic. That's it. Likewise, while we can mess around with harmonies forever, there are really only a handful of chords that consistently sound good. And once a key is chosen, there are really only seven notes to work with, or twelve if you get exotic. Then there are basically two rhythms: double time and triple time. Yet, within these very narrow contraints (much narrower than those within which poets work, I think), composers seem never to run out of catchy tunes. I understand how a composer would tire of working within such constraints, yet there have been precious few successful compositions using the twelve tone scale and not many using, say, five-four time.
The comparison with poetry is imperfect. Still, it would seem to me that the constraints on our creativity are not only not insurmountable, but might be a boon.
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 08-02-2001, 09:42 AM
ChrisW ChrisW is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,651
Post

Of course a rhymed poem should have the poetic virtues you mention. I'm not sure whom you have in mind, so not sure whether I would agree or disagree with you about any particular case.
I think I would disagree that EVERY rhyme-sound must be completely new and fresh (have a look at the thread I started "on making old rhymes fresh" -- there I offer an argument that originality of the APPROACH to the rhyme has to be the standard. We can't continually invent new rhyme sounds, but it is possible to find new ways to get from a word to its rhyme.

Insofar as skill in rhyming is concerned, you seem to consider ONLY the unusualness of the rhyme. But there's much more to it: It's cleverer to rhyme different parts of speech than similar parts of speech; it's cleverer to rhyme words with different numbers of syllables.

More importantly, you seem to regard rhyming as a mere game -- something one does to show ones skill. And of course, it is partly a game (it's fun), but it has a more important poetic function in the poem. The rhyme provides a link between lines and between the ideas of those lines (often lines which are not immediately next to one another). The grammar of the poem goes in a straight line, but the rhyme cuts across this line, giving a second dimension to the poem. This cross-referencing of lines seems to me to be a poetic virtue -- or at least it is if the rhyme words are important, and if they are being associated for some reason of comparison or contrast. And this cross-referencing is something that a free verse poet can't do (or can't do so economically).
Even where the rhyme itself is not surprising, there may be a reason for linking the two lines -- perhaps a surprising reason.
This brings us to a poetically important reason NOT to choose the cleverest newest rhyme all the time. A rhyme that links the important ideas of the poem in ways that might get one to think in a different way about those two ideas is to be preferred to a brand new rhyme which does none of this. Also, there are times when overt cleverness is distracting or unwanted for other reasons. In a poem I posted recently "Netherletter" on Metrical I, I try to come up with a series of clever rhymes, but I end with a rather boring rhyme "loam/home' partly in order to give a sense of completion, of returning to the tonic -- and perhaps to give the line a sense of greater sincerity and gravity after the "cleverer" rhymes preceding it.
If you want to attack somebody's rhymes without giving offense, and want to hear what the writer would say in defense -- you could go to that thread and rip me apart, if you want.
I only suggest that because I'm having a hard time defending ALL rhymes everywhere, but also see why you might not want to name those you feel use boring rhymes. You're perfectly welcome to rip into my rhymes.
--Chris

PS Richard posted his far pithier response while I was writing this. It occurs to me that harmony (or counterpoint) is a pretty good analogy for what I described as a second dimension that rhyme provides to verse.

[This message has been edited by ChrisW (edited August 02, 2001).]
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 08-02-2001, 01:03 PM
Richard Wakefield Richard Wakefield is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Federal Way, Washington, USA
Posts: 1,664
Post

Chris:
"Counterpoint" is indeed a fine way to describe what you're suggesting. The idea of cutting against or across the linear grammaticality of the sentences seems to me to get at the heart of what makes poetry different from prose -- ideally, at least, even though none of us ever quite achieves the ideal. When I am most rewarded as a writer I manage somehow to create a little space outside of time, or outside of linearity, if you will; when I am most rewarded as a reader I find myself in another writer's space outside of time. Yet for that space to exist I need the inexorable ticking of the meter dragging me forward -- no stillness without motion, no light without darkness: an argument for meter, whether strict or loose. Yet I can't be dogmatic about it, for writers often come up with surprising ways to achieve their ends. Whitman, for example (a writer sometimes reviled in this neighborhood), can often take me along with verses that I would expect to dislike if all I knew of them was an abstract description of their form.
RPW
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 08-02-2001, 04:07 PM
graywyvern graywyvern is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: dallas
Posts: 717
Post

interesting thoughts (can't find the question though)...
people who aren't terribly interested in clever rhymes
ought to try doing without--& not only iambic pentameter.
to my ear a ballad stanza is quite punchy enough without
end-matching of any sort. (i even advocate unrhymed songs,
but that's another matter--.) watching someone sort-of
rhyming, out of a sense that they have to, is as little fun
as watching someone sort-of juggling.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 08-17-2001, 03:07 AM
Tim Love's Avatar
Tim Love Tim Love is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 2,586
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Psychologists gave people proverbs, some versions rhyming, some not. The rhyming versions were considered truer. Rhyme seems to have this effect on people, which is worrying.

I think more of the claims of those using sound FX should be subjected to experiment.

As for form more generally, I think it's sometimes useful to cloak novelty in a familiar form. I also think that building a structure of norm/variation and expectation/release can be useful. End-rhyme, in the way that it anchors meter, can help with this.

Here's something I read recently -

on the simplest level, form functions for any poet as a kind of scaffold
from which the poem can be contructed. Stravinsky maintained that only in art
could one be freed by the imposition of more rules, perhaps because these
rules limit the field of posibilities and escort us rapidly beyond the selection
of tools and media to laying the first stone of the work itself. For the
reader, on the other hand, the shared language of the poem functions
as a map through the terrain of a new idea
...
The effect of form on the reader is like the hypnotist's dangling fob watch...
We are hypnotised or spellbound by form, because the traditional aural
techniques of verse... are designed to fix the poem in the memory...
But think of the unconscious effect of form on the poets themselves...
Any degree of difficulty in a form requires of the poet that s/he negociate
with the medium, and compremise what s/he originally 'spontaneously' intended to say... surely this is precisely the function of 'form in the traditional sense' -
that serendipity provided by negotiation with a resistant medium.

Michael Donaghy "binary myths" (Andy Brown ed.), p.16.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 08-19-2001, 02:59 AM
Tim Love's Avatar
Tim Love Tim Love is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 2,586
Blog Entries: 1
Post

ChrisW - "The rhyme provides a link between lines and between the ideas of those lines (often lines which are not immediately next to one another)."
Alas, in a regular form even if the some rhymes perform this coupling, others don't. Used irregularly however, rhyme does a good job of this.


ChrisW - The grammar of the poem goes in a straight line, but the rhyme cuts across this line, giving a second dimension to the poem. This cross-referencing of lines seems to me to be a poetic virtue -- or at least it is if the rhyme words are important, and if they are being associated for some reason of comparison or contrast. And this cross-referencing is something that a free verse poet can't do (or can't do so economically)."

See "Modernist Form", J. S. Childs, Associated University Presses, 1986, which compares modernist and pre-modernist coupling. For a start, typographical ploys (including font and color changes) can be very economical.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Forum Right Top
Forum Left Bottom Forum Right Bottom
 
Right Left
Member Login
Forgot password?
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,399
Total Threads: 21,839
Total Posts: 270,785
There are 2500 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Sponsor:
Donate & Support Able Muse / Eratosphere
Forum LeftForum Right
Right Right
Right Bottom Left Right Bottom Right

Hosted by ApplauZ Online