I am still figuring things out, but along the way I have developed a taste for the ambiguity of poetry done in all lowercase with no punctuation at all. To me, it allows the reader to imagine their own rests and pauses of course lead along by the wording.

However, I also think that is only for certain forms and in certain cases. I wouldn't want to attempt a Sonnet in this manner ofc-- but some free verse, haiku/senryu to me is better without the pretentious-looking attention to hard rules of grammar.

Do you think poetry should always adhere to the rules of punctuation and capitalization? Or do you feel it should be taken on a per-poem basis?

No. I love writing poetry without adhering to grammar and capitalization rules. Because most of what I'm saying is fragmented anyway. But it doesn't do well on this site, so I feel inclined to add punctuation.

Because the poem has to be really good for it to be absent.

I don't think that there should be any set, unchanging guidelines for poetry. If you prefer poems without hard attention to grammar, that's wonderful, and if you prefer the strict rules of sonnets and villanelles, that's wonderful too. I like both. I enjoy ee cummings and Lord Tennyson, Shakespeare and Bukowski, because the way they wrote poems emerged from their ideas about what they wanted to express and how they wanted to express it. I can't imagine Buk writing like the Bard, and vice versa, and that's a beautiful thing, in my opinion, because it shows that art is uniquely human, dependant upon passions and ideas that aren't set in stone but can be explored, tinkered with, changed and even improved by different artists.

(08-01-2013, 03:25 AM)Wildcard Wrote:  I am still figuring things out, but along the way I have developed a taste for the ambiguity of poetry done in all lowercase with no punctuation at all. To me, it allows the reader to imagine their own rests and pauses of course lead along by the wording.

However, I also think that is only for certain forms and in certain cases. I wouldn't want to attempt a Sonnet in this manner ofc-- but some free verse, haiku/senryu to me is better without the pretentious-looking attention to hard rules of grammar.

Do you think poetry should always adhere to the rules of punctuation and capitalization? Or do you feel it should be taken on a per-poem basis?

haiku is often free of written punctuation.
if a poem works without punctuation then i say fine, if it doesn't then it should have had it. personally i think a single or no caps are fine in a poem. i think when every line is capped without following a period, it takes away from the poetry, mainly because the eye automatically tells the brain the period isn't there. no poetry should be poetry.

---

(08-01-2013, 03:56 AM)newsclippings Wrote:  No. I love writing poetry without adhering to grammar and capitalization rules. Because most of what I'm saying is fragmented anyway. But it doesn't do well on this site, so I feel inclined to add punctuation.

Because the poem has to be really good for it to be absent.

for grammerless poetry to work it does have to be as news said, really good poetry. i'd also add that it should be totally void of punctuation bar apostrophes, or full of it (except where a line break does the job)
a line break, a line space, a double line space etc, can all be used instead of punctuation.

---

it's a choice whether we use it or not and choice weather we like it in poetry, it's why some always mention when every line is capped. my question is why do you do it that way, i feel like i missed something as to how poetry should be written, but agree it's just my view and not a rule

(08-01-2013, 03:25 AM)Wildcard Wrote:  Do you think poetry should always adhere to the rules of punctuation and capitalization?
Or do you feel it should be taken on a per-poem basis?

Poetry doesn't violate the rules, it just adds a few more to the list.

But seriously: The rules are so ambiguous already that anyone who dares to write
(even those pure in both body and soul) is condemned to the damnation of breaking them.

poetry as many have shown doesn't actually adhere to anything, i suspect most who have a need to cap every line have either seen it done with old poetry or newbs poetry. it's a bit like centre aligning a poem. i used to do it all the time because i saw it done by others who hadn't copped on that it was a gimmick that didn't often work (add anything to it.)
it's just a matter of taste i suppose but is that part of what of what we should give feedback on.

what's wierd is the fact you never ever see anyone say..."oh look you capped every line, i love it when a poet does that"

well if one likes it, why not say it? i don't like it so i mention that it affects the poem for me.

a rebel could include intentional errors or cleverly weave them into a parallel poem or message.

progress comes about from people pushing the limits.

As long as you know the rules, you can and probably should break them... but there's no point breaking a rule if nobody notices you've done it, or just thinks you're stupid.

I like to use it, as it serves to lead me in construction of a poem and guide the reader once complete. I can appreciate poetry without it. However, more often than not, it is omitted due to laziness or lack of acumen in the case of the novice.

(08-03-2013, 07:09 AM)billy Wrote:  poetry as many have shown doesn't actually adhere to anything, i suspect most who have a need to cap every line have either seen it done with old poetry or newbs poetry. it's a bit like centre aligning a poem. i used to do it all the time because i saw it done by others who hadn't copped on that it was a gimmick that didn't often work (add anything to it.)
it's just a matter of taste i suppose but is that part of what of what we should give feedback on.

what's wierd is the fact you never ever see anyone say..."oh look you capped every line, i love it when a poet does that"

well if one likes it, why not say it? i don't like it so i mention that it affects the poem for me.

That explains so much!

<smilie face>


Why didn't you tell me that I was doing it all wrong?

(I really did laugh out loud when I read this post and then I just smiled ironically and will try harder)

Poetry has all sorts of mechanisms in addition to punctuation marks
to convey how it should be read/spoken, where phrases/sentences/stanzas/etc.
begin/end/are broken, and what the damn thing means. So stuff sans punctuation
doesn't necessarily mean it's uncontrolled.

Some I can think of right off:

Space: Spacing within lines, length of lines, spacing of lines,
number of blank lines.

Breaking: short/long/confusing words, odd positions of words
(including enjambleramblement [oddly spelled/combined/new words
work as well]).

Meaning: Alterations in meaning that cause various forms of
confusion/re-thinking (see#8 below).

etc. etc. etc.
Punctuation be only tiny little parts of whole damn thingee.

(08-01-2013, 03:25 AM)Wildcard Wrote:  I am still figuring things out, but along the way I have developed a taste for the ambiguity of poetry done in all lowercase with no punctuation at all. To me, it allows the reader to imagine their own rests and pauses of course lead along by the wording.

However, I also think that is only for certain forms and in certain cases. I wouldn't want to attempt a Sonnet in this manner ofc-- but some free verse, haiku/senryu to me is better without the pretentious-looking attention to hard rules of grammar.

Do you think poetry should always adhere to the rules of punctuation and capitalization? Or do you feel it should be taken on a per-poem basis?

Poetry should have no rules. It is poetry. If you care to follow specific kinds and test yourself to create something within the restrictions that certain poem styles confine you to then good. I have done so for practice. But when actually writing a poem? ... write whatever it is ... that you feel ... will get your words across the most appropriately ... for whatever it is that you are trying to say = )

"I have done so for practice."

Is that intended to be condescending?

(09-15-2013, 10:33 AM)OrganicPoetTree Wrote:  Poetry should have no rules. It is poetry. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

If poetry has no rules then:
1. Poetry doesn't have to be poetry.
2. Everything, something, barelything, and nothing is and isn't poetry.
3. My grandmother has wheels and is a 1935 Duesenberg Phaeton.


If My Grandmother Had Wheels - Marilyn Cavicchia

In my blood, I’d go to the men’s room,
the bathroom at Sears, she said.
If pigs had wings, she’d be a streetcar,
she said, and I would have been a bus.

I smile at the Midwestern women. If my aunt
had balls like them, or the pioneer women
crossing the plains, she’d be a bicycle. I would
have been a bus, and we would bottle Paris.

This counterfactual thinking. It is fruitless
to speculate about counterfactual situations.
She’d be my uncle, my aunt; she’d wash
her feet in the sink if we could bottle Paris

and make a ham and cheese sandwich
as respectable Sears matrons flutter
their hands, their support knee-highs,
her feet in the sink. But it is fruitless,

this counterfactual speculation. Fruitless,
my uncle, my aunt, even my grandmother,
though I suspect she has bottled Paris,
wagoned it all the way home.

Poetry is an extension of ourselves. Therefore, to standardize rules for how each poem ought to be seems awfully asinine to me (and that goes for all other writing mediums). Granted, it works best if you're good at it and not just doing it out of laziness or lack of know-how.

I disagree that poetry is an extension of ourselves. Being everything else you said was dependent on that premise it all just disappeared.

(09-16-2013, 05:26 AM)milo Wrote:  I disagree that poetry is an extension of ourselves. Being everything else you said was dependent on that premise it all just disappeared.

That's fair enough, although I don't see how it could be anything but that because even if they aren't directly about ourselves or in some other way therapeutic, they are still how we perceive the world.

Nonetheless, I would perhaps amend my statement, then, to argue as a general rule (ha), that any rules when it comes to art seem weird. It's art, why try in any conceivable way to restrain it?

Poetry should do this or fiction should do this...feels yucky to me.

Without rules art, especially, is shit. Here, read this "ruleless" poem:

Iuawrciubiug-+@/2487/3487/@3487/348aisudciubefckjbaefbjhbaerkjbrtviuhsriu@248:778/34-8/1#3487/#34+7/34:+-/+-3%/+7/#$4+7/34+-/kuasrcuibweriubservhjubervku


What do you think? Is it brilliant? Did it speak to your soul?

Also, I have never written poetry that had anything to do with how I see the world.

I think BigRed did touch on a fair idea though. Often people that disdain punctuation simply don't know how to use it properly.

(09-16-2013, 05:37 AM)milo Wrote:  Without rules art, especially, is shit. Here, read this "ruleless" poem:

Iuawrciubiug-+@/2487/3487/@3487/348aisudciubefckjbaefbjhbaerkjbrtviuhsriu@248:778/34-8/1#3487/#34+7/34:+-/+-3%/+7/#$4+7/34+-/kuasrcuibweriubservhjubervku


What do you think? Is it brilliant? Did it speak to your soul?

Touche; the question, then, is what is art? I'm simply not a person comfortable with putting parameters on that question. It's like the Supreme Court said about porn, "We'll know it when we see it." I'll know art when I see it. Until then, adhering to strict guidelines is unnecessary.

Art is quite clearly subjective. If some like it with rhyming schemes, punctuation and other mechanics, then that's great and there are great examples of those poems. However, likewise, there are perfectly valid and great examples of poetry that wouldn't fall under any of that.