What is a poem?

Tsotha

donnyQ
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Posts
1,462
That's right, poets. I'm asking that question. You all knew it was coming, sooner or later. What is poetry? What makes it different from prose? How can you tell what is poetry, and what isn't?

To move us along a bit, some possible answers I've heard/read:

Poetry is that stuff written in verse, with rhymes. Like ye olde poems, then, which are singsong stories? Or, by extension, everything written with aesthetics and phonaesthetics in mind? So, what if I wrote a prose that sounds good? Would that be a poem?

Poetry creates emotions / feelings in the reader. The idea here is that you can make the reader feel through your words. But... When prose creates an emotion / feeling in the reader, is it a poem?

The reader has to work and assemble the poem / work and find meaning. By working, I understand that the meaning is initially obscure and must be deciphered, or else there are layers that must be peeled. Can't prose have layers, too, each new reading of a story revealing new elements and relations not previously noticed?

So... What's your take on it? :cattail:
 
i see it as musicality, the art of movement, colour, philosophy, fact and fiction, captured by words that render the words less-visible even as they inspire an emotional connection/reaction.

and then there're limericks :cool:
 
Poetry is whatever I decide is poetry.
There is no form which cannot be
deformed, reformed, grammatically perverted,
enjambed, escarped, detailed, but never retailed,
for spinners are many and buyers, few.

Poetry is whatever I decide is poetry.
Who calls the greener grass beyond the fence
not grass but something other,
green weed or woody shrub?
But, till we dare the barbs and slip through the wire,
we'll never know.

Poetry is whatever I decide is poetry.
The leash is broken the doggerel is loose,
'twas the night before Christmas, Dr. Seuse,
who never uttered "Sorry," or showed regret
might have said, "If the meter's uneven,
set it to music and call it a song."
 
Poetry like lyrics are condensed versions of the short story which is the condensed version of the novella which is the condensed version of the novel.

So condensed that punctuation for the most part can be thrown out the fucking window.

Rhyming isn't necessary, but helps create a lyrical effect without music or instrumental assistance.
 
There comes a time when all poets begin to question what the heck they're writing and then because of linear thinking, we try to define it. I've decided that this poem begins to circle the idea of poetry but by no means does it define it. I don't think an idea can be defined at any rate. It's like asking what love is, or even happiness. There are too many variables that shade our own meaning of these things so that is why I think we need to be content with our own personal view of what poetry is.
 
Poetry like lyrics are condensed versions of the short story which is the condensed version of the novella which is the condensed version of the novel.

So condensed that punctuation for the most part can be thrown out the fucking window.

Rhyming isn't necessary, but helps create a lyrical effect without music or instrumental assistance.
I disagree. Many of my poems don't even start to be a story. They do provide a vignette sometimes but by no means, save a couple defined by the form, do they have the boundaries of a story outside the fact that there's a beginning and an end.
 
I agree with Ms. Champy that how one defines poetry is an intensely personal thing. Especially if one considers oneself a poet. :D

For what it's worth, here is my take. All writing is meant to communicate but poetry attempts to do so by making art of its medium (the words). I think one can defensibly argue that is true, to some extent, in all kinds of writing but to me in none more so than poetry. The other thing is that different kinds of writing--like narration, information or persuasion--are not mutually exclusive. I can, for example, try to inform and persuade you by telling you a story. But poetry, even more than fiction, is making art from combinations of words, their look and sound and juxtapositions.
 
That's right, poets. I'm asking that question. You all knew it was coming, sooner or later. What is poetry? What makes it different from prose? How can you tell what is poetry, and what isn't?

To move us along a bit, some possible answers I've heard/read:

Poetry is that stuff written in verse, with rhymes. Like ye olde poems, then, which are singsong stories? Or, by extension, everything written with aesthetics and phonaesthetics in mind? So, what if I wrote a prose that sounds good? Would that be a poem?

Poetry creates emotions / feelings in the reader. The idea here is that you can make the reader feel through your words. But... When prose creates an emotion / feeling in the reader, is it a poem?

The reader has to work and assemble the poem / work and find meaning. By working, I understand that the meaning is initially obscure and must be deciphered, or else there are layers that must be peeled. Can't prose have layers, too, each new reading of a story revealing new elements and relations not previously noticed?

So... What's your take on it? :cattail:
You may be para-phasing me out of context, that usually constitutes a better poetry, but not always, as a heavy rhythm component suppresses work toward what is commonly called meaning.
I am totally agreeing with Bronzeage, except I would put it as some asshole writes a poem, some other asshole thinks it is one and toplists are born, except...
I am even more sardonic than that...
Apparently a license is involved, that when you get one it enables you to generate poems. Ah me, I never sent the application.

Seriously, there is another thread (probably more) and any definition arrived at would be exclusionary and rather subjective.

And thus being subjective we arrive full circle, you have to do the work (in deciding).

And being in Disagree Mode, I disagree with Champ, in that some poems do not have a beginning or an end. Either in structure (persian braids or something like that, and theoretically it is possible to write a poem that can be read either way in Chinese, one of which was mentioned in one of their classics) or more often in content, in that they loop.

It is a vague word, and this argument can be transposed into what is ....comedy,
music, freedom, love, etc. to the point of Ad nauseam

Slough through new poems, you quickly get an real idea of what is and what is not "poetry", it will be subjective, but it will be a "good" one.
 
<snip>
And being in Disagree Mode, I disagree with Champ, in that some poems do not have a beginning or an end. Either in structure (persian braids or something like that, and theoretically it is possible to write a poem that can be read either way in Chinese, one of which was mentioned in one of their classics) or more often in content, in that they loop.<snip>.
Ok... I'll phrase it differently without (as far as I'm concerned)... a place where you start (a beginning) and a place where you finish (an ending - conceivably these could be the same point).
 
Thank you all for your answers.

Poetry is whatever I decide is poetry.

This is a very interesting assertion. Indeed, every person who sets out to write a poem believes he is writing a poem. And yet, one comment I've seen is: "this isn't very poetic" (implying that there is a gradient). If a poem is meant to be shared, some care should be taken that it can be recognized as a poem by others. I think. :)

Poetry like lyrics are condensed versions of the short story which is the condensed version of the novella which is the condensed version of the novel.

Some poems tell a story, but not all. Some are just an expression of emotions, or a description of something, without a beginning and an end. I like, however, that you've bunched poems together with novels. More about that further below.

There comes a time when all poets begin to question what the heck they're writing and then because of linear thinking, we try to define it. I've decided that this poem begins to circle the idea of poetry but by no means does it define it. I don't think an idea can be defined at any rate. It's like asking what love is, or even happiness. There are too many variables that shade our own meaning of these things so that is why I think we need to be content with our own personal view of what poetry is.

Ah, I am not looking for a hard definition. Not really. :) I hope to develop my own sensibility by taking a look at what others think. I agree that there are too many variables, and ultimately I will be the judge of whether something is poetry (for me). On the other hand, though no element or rule single-handedly determines whether something is a poem, certain qualities can often be found when several people agree that something is a poem.

I like the poem you've linked. There is a passive element and and active element there, I think — "poetry is in the things around me that make me feel" (passive), and "poetry is when I start a conversation with the world" (active). But what kind of conversation? Surely it must go beyond that intent?

i see it as musicality, the art of movement, colour, philosophy, fact and fiction, captured by words that render the words less-visible even as they inspire an emotional connection/reaction.

For what it's worth, here is my take. All writing is meant to communicate but poetry attempts to do so by making art of its medium (the words). I think one can defensibly argue that is true, to some extent, in all kinds of writing but to me in none more so than poetry.

You both use the word art, and I think it is significant. Art in words implies (to me, at least) that there is a purpose behind the way something is written. Prose, I think, is more concerned with what is written.

butters, your definition is beautiful. I especially like the part captured by words that render the words less-visible. If I understand correctly, words are deliberately chosen, but they are not the goal — ideally they must disappear. They are the medium through which a certain resonance can emerge (connection / reaction).

Ange, that's an interesting take. All writing is meant to communicate, indeed; unless someone writes something that is complete nonsense! :D But then, I suppose failure to communicate is something that can also be communicated (confusion, dazedness, perplexity, etc.).

The other thing is that different kinds of writing--like narration, information or persuasion--are not mutually exclusive. I can, for example, try to inform and persuade you by telling you a story. But poetry, even more than fiction, is making art from combinations of words, their look and sound and juxtapositions.

For some reason, Ange, I feel compelled to put "poetry" up there amongst "narration, information and persuasion". In my mind, a text is a text, no matter if it is in verse or paragraphs, and it can possess different qualities (poetic, narrative, informative, persuasive), depending on how it is assembled from words.

So, still in my mind, it's not that "poetry, even more than fiction, is making art from combinations of words", but that fiction (e.g. a novel) is often very narrative and not very poetic. But I could (theoretically) make something narrative, long AND poetic, right? (Or informative and poetic, or persuasive and poetic.)

Here's a challenge: writing fiction that is both narrative AND poetic. Wait a second, I think we're already trying to do that... ;)

You may be para-phasing me out of context, that usually constitutes a better poetry, but not always, as a heavy rhythm component suppresses work toward what is commonly called meaning.

Sorry 1201, I didn't meant to para-phrase you out of context. In my original post, I'm trying to stir things up to promote discussion. Seems to have worked. :) Indeed, I agree that those are elements that sometimes figure into "good" poetry — but not always! You don't get a perfect poem by ticking every box in a checklist for "what makes a poem"...

Slough through new poems, you quickly get an real idea of what is and what is not "poetry", it will be subjective, but it will be a "good" one.

Oh, I did that. In fact, it's what ultimately led me to start this thread.

1201 says: "go into that museum and make me a critique of every painting."

To which Tsotha responds by going in there and making a critique of every sculpture. :rolleyes:

Of course, there are poems I've read which I thought were poor, and very unpoetic. But as bronzeage said: poetry is whatever I (or they) decide is poetry. Whoever wrote those unpoetic poems thought they were writing poems. If everything is subjective, how am I to judge? Can I only "feel" poetry? Can I judge the technique? (I could, if I had a better grasp of it myself.)

For instance, something you said on another thread: "If I knew what it was at first reading, would it be poetry?" It is a good question. If I read something that tells tells tells (instead of showing), is it poetry?

ye olde poems ?!!! :caning:

Oh... Why the caning? :cattail: I don't know how it is in the English language, but "classic" poetry in Portuguese was very formulaic. At least, I don't think you'll find a free form poem by Camões (~1500 AC)... :) I have nothing against rhymes and form, honestly. Well, except that I feel it's difficult for me to pull it off in English.

___

Whew, I'm done. Time to recharge the battery.
 
Last edited:
From one of the first gunslinger rounds. Not definitive, but as good a starting point as any.


:cool:
 
An analogy

Transaction. Trans-action. Suppose you were to go visit a prostitute, X is done, money is exchanged, transaction is complete. Now suppose you are attracted to someone (common definition of love), that person is attracted to you and something permanent results and you consummate that love. X is still done, but as a component of something more. Between these two extremes lies a whole variety of scenarios (relationships) some parasitical, destructive, etc. Poetry is like that.
All well and good, numbered one, what about jerking off?
Well we get that a lot. Over in New Poems. Still called poems, and easily identified by serial submissions with no comments. They don't engage.

So your poems are little fuckers looking for a fuckee.

This is why so Triangles are easy grist for the popular mill, the inherent instability creates interest. Consider what I just said about instability and interest.

There is nothing lofty about this attempted definition, as they tend to come from the most venal.

There is nothing that delineated as they tend to come from the most anal.

Poetry is beyond you. Poems are an attempt to close that distance.
 
Poetry is beyond you. Poems are an attempt to close that distance.
for Mike

feet sunk in mud
grasping at stars
the poet does
all he can

to build a bridge out of words

there's dirt on his hands
a sheen on his brow
his belly's full of acid, meat and dreams

born with that need
to embrace it all
he's torn -
inhabiting some desperate place





an old one, but your phrase captured what i was trying to show in it
 
The longer fiction writer tends to do the brainwork for the reader in terms of describing what everything looks like and what is going on. You say may narrative as opposed to poetic, but it is more overkill than anything else. Dumbed down is the extreme.

Shorter fiction writers cram more story in with word-symbols that capitalize on the reader's process of association. The reader helps flesh out the story. You are giving the reader free license to interpret your words.

However, poetry is susceptible to the same overkill. Dumbed up would be the polar extreme. If the majority of readers are scratching their heads and having to read a poem 3, 4, 5 times to understand the story or emotion or whatever you are conveying ..... it is not poetic either. It is an extremely short story told very badly.

We label the shortest of stories as poetry or lyrics, but they can be the furthest thing from poetic or lyrical if we ignore that the reader has a hand in completing them.
 
However, poetry is susceptible to the same overkill. Dumbed up would be the polar extreme. If the majority of readers are scratching their heads and having to read a poem 3, 4, 5 times to understand the story or emotion or whatever you are conveying ..... it is not poetic either. It is an extremely short story told very badly.

We label the shortest of stories as poetry or lyrics, but they can be the furthest thing from poetic or lyrical if we ignore that the reader has a hand in completing them.

This is valid also, however, given that the vast majority of readers are morons, a certain percentage can be ruled out. A "poem" should attempt a second reading, the second reading should be different from the first.
 
This is valid also, however, given that the vast majority of readers are morons, a certain percentage can be ruled out. A "poem" should attempt a second reading, the second reading should be different from the first.

Whuttttttttttttttt?

Are we talking attendees of Literotica or readers in general?
 
This is valid also, however, given that the vast majority of readers are morons, a certain percentage can be ruled out. A "poem" should attempt a second reading, the second reading should be different from the first.

Imho the better poems always require at least two readings. A sign to me that a poem is really good is my need to read it over and over to understand more and more.
 
from my favourite poem

“My words itch at your ears till you understand them”
― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself
“Have you reckon'd a thousand acres much? have you reckon'd the earth much?
Have you practis'd so long to learn to read?
Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?

Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of all poems,
You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions of suns left,)
You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books,
You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me,
You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self. ”
― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself
 
Whuttttttttttttttt?

Are we talking attendees of Literotica or readers in general?
Ah, c'mon, Literotica is a microcosm of a segment of the population, you know I mean both.
It has it's share of literalists. I was asked once if a certain 'poem' was true, yep, exactly as I filed it on the police report.
It was a spaghetti western.

Song may be a better analogy than story in regards to poetry.
 
Imho the better poems always require at least two readings. A sign to me that a poem is really good is my need to read it over and over to understand more and more.
The best poems are the WTF (in caps), you've had a few, where you have to go back and determine the inner logic.
So it is not obscurantism for the sake of obscurantism, because there is something that leads you back.
 
The best poems are the WTF (in caps), you've had a few, where you have to go back and determine the inner logic.
So it is not obscurantism for the sake of obscurantism, because there is something that leads you back.

Yes, you know something exciting is happening so you keep going back for the nuances, to understand why it is working the way it is. And it's not necessarily the writer being obscure (though he or she might be), but that you as a reader are working to make the connections you sense are there.
 
some readers want it dished up on a plate, processed, bones removed, and their lips wiped for them afterwards.

i prefer to get my fingers a little greasy ;)
 
Back
Top