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.
|