[Rose Kelleher]

I was persuaded as soon as I read the Donald Justice poem in the other thread. Seems like it encourages short lines and compression, which could be a good antidote to IP-itis. That and reading Tim and Wendy's poems.

I've read some syllabic poems that didn't please my ear, but most of these examples sound great. What makes the difference? I'm seeing a lot of feminine line endings in the ones I like best. I'm sure there are other useful techniques, too, but somehow I don't think studying them would be as helpful as just trying it, and going back and re-reading the good ones.

p.s. Some here seem to be arguing that syllabics in English aren't worthwhile. But obviously some beautiful poems have been written in syllabics in English. So what am I missing? Look at the examples and ask yourself: Is this good poem? Is it, in fact, a better poem than most of mine? If so, maybe I shouldn't dismiss the technique on pedantic theoretical grounds.

p.p.s. I like Moore's "Fish," but I'm not crazy about all the line breaks. Which has got me wondering: If you use syllabics merely as a tool to help you write a poem, then do you necessarily need to preserve the line breaks, afterwards, that resulted from the technique? In, say, Plath's "Mushrooms," the lines are more, uh, line-y; you wouldn't want to mess with the line breaks. The syllabics clearly contribute to the result as well as to the process. But if you reorganized "Fish" without the cute triangular stanzas, it might even sound better that way.