Trying to understand English poetry, is there a structure to this poem? Looks like the poet just randomly split sentences into multiple lines without any specific structure. I like the content itself, but what differentiates it from a block of text? Is there more to this poem that I fail to understand?
Consider the first two lines. Although they are one sentence they are split into two thoughts.
Also consider the tension created by the author putting a line break after “undress”, creating a (gentle) joke/misdirection that’s revealed in the next line.
You could apply this reduction to any artform. Your favorite song is “randomly” in 4/4, or “randomly” in D minor, or is “randomly” about someone called Suzanne, or “randomly” features a high note in the middle of the chorus.
Finally, consider a punnet square of
<span style="color:#323232;"> GOOD ART | BAD ART
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> I LIKE IT
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> I DONT LIKE IT
</span>
it’s pretty easy to fill in if I was to show you pieces of art
it’s really hard to fill in if you have to define each of the four items before you fill it in, and ask me to fill it in on your behalf with these instructions.
So: what constitutes a good poem, and why doesn’t this meet that criteria? What consists a poem you like and why doesn’t this meet your criteria?
I ask because, you accuse it of “looking random” as a bad thing - should all good poems not “look random”? Might I ask you to consider that the look of a poem might not be it’s only metric of worthiness - even if it’s in the “bad art” and “I don’t like it” section of the diagram above?
That was some great explanation, thank you! That really helps me see the poem differently. I don’t think everything is random about songs, but songs are more obvious for me to understand why they are structured the way they are, where are poetry like this is a bit baffling, probably because I’m not a native speaker.
there’s more history feeding these kind of decisions as well. When you’re writing - as Shakespeare did - in blank verse, you have to end the line after 5 iambic feet (ten syllables). Shakespeare is considered the king of this because of how he does it.
“Friends. Romans. Countrymen. Lend me your ears.”
10 syllables but the speaker is trying to attract the attention of a large crowd. He’s counting. Friends (1). Romans (2). Countrymen (3). Lend me your ears (4).
In Othello, Iago says
<span style="color:#323232;"> For when my outward action doth demonstrate
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> The native act and figure of my heart
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> In complement extern, 'tis not long after
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> For daws to peck at. I am not what I am.
</span>
Note how the line breaks are sense breaks too. So Shakespeare is skillfully obeying the meter while also lining up the sense of the underlying message.
There’s even the same tension/release device of the undressing from the above poem in the last two lines (when I wear my heart on my sleeve… … …it gets eaten by birds!)
When you don’t have a strict meter (in the same way that modern music nowadays doesn’t obey the Sonata form, or the symphony form) you can be more inventive with how you’re using form and format to create your work.
Iambic Pantemeter is the most common system in American poetry. However, I have forgotten what the hell the rhythm for that actually is so I don’t know if this is that or not. I know it doesn’t necessarily rhyme and tons of things written in that style are more like speeches or just normal writing.
The “Now is the winter of our discontent…” speech is Iambic pantemeter.
Add comment