I'm not a poet. But I was one of those people who thought writing gibberish lines echoing depths of emotion could qualify as poetry, even more so, if those gibberish lines rhyme.
Then, I went to college and became an English major.
Before, I really didn't have any idea that most poems written by students in high school and grade school qualified as bad poetry. Almost everyone had the same idea of what poetry should be: highfalutin, barely incomprehensible words mashed together, exuding a sense of mystery and presumed genius in every line written.
But a couple of teachers really opened my eyes to what worthwhile poetry is all about. In one class, Sir Don had impressed upon me a cardinal rule in poetry writing: Imagery is everything ( Or so he implied. I'm just condensing everything he's taught in a sentence). In other words, if I can't see something in reading a poem's lines, then that poem might as well be rubbish. A poem, after all, must appeal to the eyes, concretizing abstract concepts and thoughts to realistic images in the mind.
I recall an instance in Sir Ed's class when he wasn't impressed by my prose. It was an essay writing exercise and I was supposed to describe a place. I thought I nailed that one until he gave me a solid "average" mark. The reason? I kept using the adjective "beautiful". And beautiful, no matter how many times one uses it, doesn't evoke any imagery at all. It's a worthless word that doesn't draw the mind to anything in particular. In poetry, words such as these shouldn't have a place.
Another thing poetry should have is a double-meaning. Simply put, you're saying one thing but you're saying another. It's that fascinating quality that makes reading poetry quite delicious and all of the beautiful poems thrive in such dual, even multiple meanings.
I guess there are other factors to consider when judging what is poetry and what is not. Supposedly, there is the acknowledgment of structure, the careful diction, the sound of the words, all of which determine in part the quality of a poem.
But as for me, these are but minor affects. For a miasma of words to be considered a poem, it only must have the two qualities I described above.
And that, my dear friends, is what I think a poem must have.
Then, I went to college and became an English major.
Before, I really didn't have any idea that most poems written by students in high school and grade school qualified as bad poetry. Almost everyone had the same idea of what poetry should be: highfalutin, barely incomprehensible words mashed together, exuding a sense of mystery and presumed genius in every line written.
But a couple of teachers really opened my eyes to what worthwhile poetry is all about. In one class, Sir Don had impressed upon me a cardinal rule in poetry writing: Imagery is everything ( Or so he implied. I'm just condensing everything he's taught in a sentence). In other words, if I can't see something in reading a poem's lines, then that poem might as well be rubbish. A poem, after all, must appeal to the eyes, concretizing abstract concepts and thoughts to realistic images in the mind.
I recall an instance in Sir Ed's class when he wasn't impressed by my prose. It was an essay writing exercise and I was supposed to describe a place. I thought I nailed that one until he gave me a solid "average" mark. The reason? I kept using the adjective "beautiful". And beautiful, no matter how many times one uses it, doesn't evoke any imagery at all. It's a worthless word that doesn't draw the mind to anything in particular. In poetry, words such as these shouldn't have a place.
Another thing poetry should have is a double-meaning. Simply put, you're saying one thing but you're saying another. It's that fascinating quality that makes reading poetry quite delicious and all of the beautiful poems thrive in such dual, even multiple meanings.
I guess there are other factors to consider when judging what is poetry and what is not. Supposedly, there is the acknowledgment of structure, the careful diction, the sound of the words, all of which determine in part the quality of a poem.
But as for me, these are but minor affects. For a miasma of words to be considered a poem, it only must have the two qualities I described above.
And that, my dear friends, is what I think a poem must have.
No comments:
Post a Comment