06-18-2014, 11:49 AM
Hello, Loretta I definitely don't think you should delete this poem, but I prefer poems that are less abstract. As for the rhyme scheme an AA rhyme scheme is generally regarded as too sing songy, a lot of poets switched to blank verse to lose this quality, or something like that. You can compare Marvell to Milton and see that Marvell has an amazing sound quality, but you can become distracted by the rhyming and the verse is rendered a little less serious. Now, I am by no means an expert, but there are some experts on this site. However, Billy usually has the most common sense. Now here's what they've posted on the serious critique forums which I thought was quite useful.
This is not a definitive guide, just something I've devised over the years and found to work. Using the reverse weight to that of a debate:
Method: The way the work is presented. Structure and language especially.
Manner: How it's presented. Imagery, sonics, metaphor.
Matter: WHAT is being said, the argument/examples/information
Method: Does the form of the poem support the content?
This is generally more rigid for structured poetry than freeverse. For example, if someone writes in meter there are standard measures to decide whether it's been done properly. Similarly with cinquains, rictameters and other set forms. There's no such requirement for free verse. For either, though:
-- Look at line breaks, line lengths and punctuation. Are these carefully placed or arbitrary? Do they provide emphasis? Do they contribute to mood?
-- Is the language of the poem suitable? Does the tone convey the appropriate mood? Look at things like vernacular, archaisms, scientific discourse. Do these "mesh"? If not, does the language choice provide contrast/juxtapositions/irony or is it simply "wrong"?
-- Does the poem appear fluid or does it seem forced? Is the language stilted and awkward? Do inversions of syntax and other grammatical oddities contribute to the piece or detract from it? Rhyme will come into this as well -- any rhymes should seem natural and not overstated or obvious.
Manner: How "poetic" is the poem?
-- Is the phrasing interesting and original?
-- Are all metaphors etc clearly drawn and continued, or are they seemingly random and overblown?
-- Does the imagery/symbolism make sense or does it seem too personal/closed?
-- Do individual sounds/words enhance the poem? For example, lyric poetry is better served with softer, rounder sounds and sibilants. Battle poems -- hard sharp sounds. Consider how the sounds contribute to the speed of the poem. This ties in closely with the method but also very strongly supports the "imagery" side.
Matter: What is being said?
-- Is the topic of the poem interesting? Bearing in mind that any topic may be interesting or dull depending on the way it's presented -- so, is the poet finding that required hook?
-- Is it logically presented? This will obviously not come into play in certain kinds of poetry (surrealism defies logic deliberately, for example). Further to this, though, consider whether the poem keep the reader's interest or is a bunch of non sequiturs that are unlinked by any devices.
Remember: Whether you LIKE the poem is the very last thing you should consider if you wish to remain objective.
A critique without a rationale is no critique at all, it is just an uninformed opinion.
Here is a very brief list of some catchall categories one can use that they may find helpful if they have difficulty trying to put into words what they want to convey:
It (this word, this phrase) is disruptive to the reading (in other words I had to pause to figure out what it meant)
It (usually a phrase) was unclear (I could not extract any meaning from it)
Did not appear germane (seemed to have nothing to do with the the rest of the poem).
Forced cleverness (seemed more about using clever metaphors, or phrases, than saying something vital about the topic)
The format used did not seem the best for the topic (using iambic tetrameter with rhyming couplets for a serious topic)
Lack of clarity or confusion caused by poor grammar/tense/ punctuation.
Spelling errors.
Unintentional or unnecessary ambiguity.
Overly vague (not giving enough information for the reader to make sense of the poem)
Excesses use of obscure, and undocumented allusions.
Use of archaic or rarely used words when more common words would do just as well.
Allowing the form to be detrimental to the content through such things as forced rhymes, or phrasing/syntax that has nothing to do with the poem, or is out of character.
Trite or cliche phrasing (unless part of the character's way of speaking, or for some other intended purpose to illustrate a point).
Just a start but some may find these useful.
*With thanks to Erthona
Basic Meter
The metric poetic line is broken up into "feet", which essentially are measures of meter. Feet are determined by syllables, not by word length. Pentameter has five feet per line, tetrameter has four, hexameter has six... you get the picture. So "iambic pentameter" has five feet, all of which are iambic. The feet can vary in makeup, depending on the type of meter chosen. Here are some of the basic kinds (this is not an exhaustive list, and people often make up their own, but here you go).
Iambic: an iamb is made up of two syllables where the stress (or accent) is placed on the second syllable.
eg. "She CANnot FADE, though THOU hast NOT thy BLISS,
For EVer WILT thou LOVE, and SHE be FAIR!" (Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn".
Counting the accented (strongly stressed) syllables, you come up with five beats, hence these lines are in iambic pentameter, a meter which always starts a line on a soft stress and ends on a hard. Iambic meter gives a kind of sing-song, often soothing rhythm which is why it's so often used for love poetry.
Trochaic: A trochee is essentially the opposite of an iamb -- two syllables, HARD soft. Trochees give a strong beat, often like an exclamation, and are commonly employed in nursery rhymes because they make quite an impression.
eg. "SANta CLAUS you FAT old GIT".
If you look at Shakespeare's sonnets, you'll find that the Bard often slipped a trochee into the first line to make an impact, which is just what it does.
Dactylic: Dactyls are three-syllable feet, HARD soft soft. DUM diddy... I think of it as a kind of blues beat.
eg. "VICtory LIVES in the HEART of the CELT,
GIFTed by BLOODstains that FLOW on through YEARS"
The dactylic line will often end on the strong stress, leaving a pause as you would find at the end of a song lyric (this is called a "truncated dactyl").
Anapestic: An anapest is another three-syllable foot, soft soft HARD -- da da DUM. Anapests give a galloping feel to a line and are often used to describe action.
eg. "And the SHEEN of their SPEARS was like STARS on the SEA,
When the BLUE wave rolls NIGHTly on DEEP GaliLEE" (Byron, The Destruction of Sennacherib)
Meters can be mixed up and experimented with to strengthen a poem sonically. They needn't be employed only in rhyming poetry. Sound is important to consider in most poems -- they are, generally speaking, supposed to be read aloud.
So, hopefully that helps. Content is another story, what are we trying to capture with poetry? In my opinion, pretensions (if you have any) need to be questioned. Now that being said, I'm not really an expert in poetry. Good luck.
This is not a definitive guide, just something I've devised over the years and found to work. Using the reverse weight to that of a debate:
Method: The way the work is presented. Structure and language especially.
Manner: How it's presented. Imagery, sonics, metaphor.
Matter: WHAT is being said, the argument/examples/information
Method: Does the form of the poem support the content?
This is generally more rigid for structured poetry than freeverse. For example, if someone writes in meter there are standard measures to decide whether it's been done properly. Similarly with cinquains, rictameters and other set forms. There's no such requirement for free verse. For either, though:
-- Look at line breaks, line lengths and punctuation. Are these carefully placed or arbitrary? Do they provide emphasis? Do they contribute to mood?
-- Is the language of the poem suitable? Does the tone convey the appropriate mood? Look at things like vernacular, archaisms, scientific discourse. Do these "mesh"? If not, does the language choice provide contrast/juxtapositions/irony or is it simply "wrong"?
-- Does the poem appear fluid or does it seem forced? Is the language stilted and awkward? Do inversions of syntax and other grammatical oddities contribute to the piece or detract from it? Rhyme will come into this as well -- any rhymes should seem natural and not overstated or obvious.
Manner: How "poetic" is the poem?
-- Is the phrasing interesting and original?
-- Are all metaphors etc clearly drawn and continued, or are they seemingly random and overblown?
-- Does the imagery/symbolism make sense or does it seem too personal/closed?
-- Do individual sounds/words enhance the poem? For example, lyric poetry is better served with softer, rounder sounds and sibilants. Battle poems -- hard sharp sounds. Consider how the sounds contribute to the speed of the poem. This ties in closely with the method but also very strongly supports the "imagery" side.
Matter: What is being said?
-- Is the topic of the poem interesting? Bearing in mind that any topic may be interesting or dull depending on the way it's presented -- so, is the poet finding that required hook?
-- Is it logically presented? This will obviously not come into play in certain kinds of poetry (surrealism defies logic deliberately, for example). Further to this, though, consider whether the poem keep the reader's interest or is a bunch of non sequiturs that are unlinked by any devices.
Remember: Whether you LIKE the poem is the very last thing you should consider if you wish to remain objective.
A critique without a rationale is no critique at all, it is just an uninformed opinion.
Here is a very brief list of some catchall categories one can use that they may find helpful if they have difficulty trying to put into words what they want to convey:
It (this word, this phrase) is disruptive to the reading (in other words I had to pause to figure out what it meant)
It (usually a phrase) was unclear (I could not extract any meaning from it)
Did not appear germane (seemed to have nothing to do with the the rest of the poem).
Forced cleverness (seemed more about using clever metaphors, or phrases, than saying something vital about the topic)
The format used did not seem the best for the topic (using iambic tetrameter with rhyming couplets for a serious topic)
Lack of clarity or confusion caused by poor grammar/tense/ punctuation.
Spelling errors.
Unintentional or unnecessary ambiguity.
Overly vague (not giving enough information for the reader to make sense of the poem)
Excesses use of obscure, and undocumented allusions.
Use of archaic or rarely used words when more common words would do just as well.
Allowing the form to be detrimental to the content through such things as forced rhymes, or phrasing/syntax that has nothing to do with the poem, or is out of character.
Trite or cliche phrasing (unless part of the character's way of speaking, or for some other intended purpose to illustrate a point).
Just a start but some may find these useful.
*With thanks to Erthona
Basic Meter
The metric poetic line is broken up into "feet", which essentially are measures of meter. Feet are determined by syllables, not by word length. Pentameter has five feet per line, tetrameter has four, hexameter has six... you get the picture. So "iambic pentameter" has five feet, all of which are iambic. The feet can vary in makeup, depending on the type of meter chosen. Here are some of the basic kinds (this is not an exhaustive list, and people often make up their own, but here you go).
Iambic: an iamb is made up of two syllables where the stress (or accent) is placed on the second syllable.
eg. "She CANnot FADE, though THOU hast NOT thy BLISS,
For EVer WILT thou LOVE, and SHE be FAIR!" (Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn".
Counting the accented (strongly stressed) syllables, you come up with five beats, hence these lines are in iambic pentameter, a meter which always starts a line on a soft stress and ends on a hard. Iambic meter gives a kind of sing-song, often soothing rhythm which is why it's so often used for love poetry.
Trochaic: A trochee is essentially the opposite of an iamb -- two syllables, HARD soft. Trochees give a strong beat, often like an exclamation, and are commonly employed in nursery rhymes because they make quite an impression.
eg. "SANta CLAUS you FAT old GIT".
If you look at Shakespeare's sonnets, you'll find that the Bard often slipped a trochee into the first line to make an impact, which is just what it does.
Dactylic: Dactyls are three-syllable feet, HARD soft soft. DUM diddy... I think of it as a kind of blues beat.
eg. "VICtory LIVES in the HEART of the CELT,
GIFTed by BLOODstains that FLOW on through YEARS"
The dactylic line will often end on the strong stress, leaving a pause as you would find at the end of a song lyric (this is called a "truncated dactyl").
Anapestic: An anapest is another three-syllable foot, soft soft HARD -- da da DUM. Anapests give a galloping feel to a line and are often used to describe action.
eg. "And the SHEEN of their SPEARS was like STARS on the SEA,
When the BLUE wave rolls NIGHTly on DEEP GaliLEE" (Byron, The Destruction of Sennacherib)
Meters can be mixed up and experimented with to strengthen a poem sonically. They needn't be employed only in rhyming poetry. Sound is important to consider in most poems -- they are, generally speaking, supposed to be read aloud.
So, hopefully that helps. Content is another story, what are we trying to capture with poetry? In my opinion, pretensions (if you have any) need to be questioned. Now that being said, I'm not really an expert in poetry. Good luck.