inversions in poetry

[abu nuwas]

It rather seems as though there is a hazy consensus that inversion is always bad, wrong, and with no place in poetry. Except maybe sometimes, if it can be justified, and comes with a certificate from the Muses' Guild.

The discussion precisely mirrors those about rhyme: expression is forced, because of the need to find a rhyme. What justification can rhyme have? How, in exact terms, does it improve understanding or meaning? We do not speak that way; it is ridiculous to hope someone will read rhymed poetry without finding it awkward; they will be forever conscious of it, and looking for it. Away with rhyme. While we are at it, is not metre a bit soppy? How does that help with meaning and understanding. Give me just one single example of how metre improved meaning over the last 2000 years. Just one.

And for God's sake, make no effort to write in a poetic way. Just because it poetry, does not give you free rein to depart from the rules of sound, solid, prose. Even that is often too loose: I recommend reading Capablanca v Alekhine in the famous 1927 tournament. There you will find sensible, plain language. That is the way to go: chess notation.

Some of the simpler souls may be wondering just where inversion begins and ends. When withdrawing the poetic licence, it seems only fair to state, in good plain terms, just what is involved. No-one wants to be sneered at, and, it now seems, if they post here, knowing the views of the Pigists, they will either not post, or post so as to demonstrate that they have learnt. How about this little snippet from John Hegley's 'Glad to wear Glasses' book?:

'you're even thicker than your glasses
less of that Rowena I commanded
don't you ever talk about my glasses like that again
ALRIGHT I said
but she'd already gone
I never saw her go though


(I never had my glasses on)'

Do 'I commanded' and 'I said' count? or somewhere he has 'said Rowena? Legal or no?

How about 'In No Strange Land'?

http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/fra...ange-land/

I mean, we must forgive him his silly 'thou's -- but that first verse? Why not just 'We view thee (o) world invisible? WTF is gained by reversing it? Anyone know? It is bang out of order, of course --isn't it?

Bed calls. Happy days and nights all. Even Mr Erthona-Hyde

rather than go off on crazy tangents about all the other poetic devices (actual poetic devices) that have nothing to do with inversion, why not just say what you think works so well about inversion that modern writers should start adding it to all of their poems.

Perhaps inversion would be more palatable to the plain-language club, were it called by its other name: anastrophe. There! Feeling better? Anastrophe -- rolls around the tongue doesn't it? And -Greek terminology always has that extra appeal.

Of course, there may be some churlish souls who, having invested so much in preaching against inversion, they will never come round. They like real poetic devices, like anaphora. Or do they? If anastrophe is no good, perhaps that is old hat too? Old-fashioned, not of the moment, uncool. Perhaps it may have been useful for Churchill and fighting on the beaches, and fighting on hill-sides and all -but in our brave new world? I shall send off for a correspondence course:' Poetic Devices in 10 Easy Lessons!' They'll tell me what good and what currently unfashionable.

Now, Milo, I am wandering again. You asked a simple, plain man's question.

''What works so well that modern writers should use inversion/anastrophe.'' I paraphrase.

Ask yourself the purpose of any other poetic device, so-called. Tricks or knacks perhaps as god terms. Rhyme, say. Why, it can add to the sound of the poem, pure and simple. More, it can enable the writer, by using the rhyme, to point the reader in an unexpected place, and give emphasis to a particular locution, or word. In that way, the poet wins against the belaboured plain-speaker: he can by emphasising words through rhyme, open new avenues of thought in the reader. The corollary, of course, is that he can get the reader to gloss over some words which may be necessary because language demands them, but whose meaning is not much wanted at the fore.

That is what anastrophe does, that is why modern writers should seek to acquire the skill to use it. Metre is improved by it;it is all good.

Now it's your turn to say what is, or is not, anastrophe, as there is a deal of confusion. Or play through Capablanca's losing game.

---

I would love to see a single example to back up this claim. i could provide 100 that show the opposite on this forum alone but if you could just provide a single example of inversion used effectively in the last 100 years i would love to read it.

Well, before I refer you to the stanzas from my poem Youth again, I think we need to establish whether it is an inversion to put an adjective after a noun. It's correct to put adverbs after verbs, but I think (though I may be wrong) that it is generally considered incorrect to put an adjective after a noun.

In the stanzas I quoted above, I wrote "Of youth's trail vanishing". The person who critiqued it suggested that I make that "Of youth's vanishing trail". But again, perhaps that isn't the best example. I'm tempted to post a poem I recently finished in which I invert a verb and subject, a poem which contains those lines above that Billy called "gibberish". (They aren't gibberish when you read the whole poem.) Of course, you may not want to have to read a poem of mine in order to get my point, and you might disagree anyway. I'll look for such an instance in a famous poem and post it here.

It all comes down to personal preference. Your preference doesn't prove your point, and my preference doesn't prove my point.

==========

What the hell. I went ahead and posted my poem My Heat in the Mild Critique section. There is a subject/verb inversion in the third stanza.

stop it with your poetry, this is a discussion not a showcase. and i'm allowed to think those lines are gibberish, as you put them up they stood, i'm not physic. use someone elses poetry. have a look through the site and post a few inverted lines. better yet post so inverted lines from a well known poet.

i'm sorry sorry sorry but i just see most of the argument for inversion as out and out bullshit. i see people calling it a poetic device, i see people saying think "if the consensus of people say inversion is wrong ...sis it really wrong" well yes that what everyone except those who use it agree on. they agree that it's shite poetry. and in all honest i'd never use one my my poems to prove a point about poetry apart from showing it as an example of shite poetry. you put a piece of poetry of yours up calab and your putting it up for discussion. it would not bode too well. i've read a few of yours and i can't say i'd use them as examples of good poetry [you brought it up, i'm just replying to you]

if you invert the odds are your poetry will not be of a good quality. inversion is not a poetic device it is an aberration for which poets who use it should be flayed. you will not brain wash me abu

I shall brainwash you, Billy. It stands like this with you: inversion is bad > mysteriously, poems with inversion in them are bad. It is very judgmental. You should judge --but should you not try to make a poem the best that that can be --not the plain, prose-like thing you might prefer?

PS I know no ad hominem and all, but who is this prick?