<![CDATA[Poetry Forum - Poetry Discussion]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/ Mon, 01 Jun 2026 19:23:35 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[What is poetry]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27403.html Sun, 31 May 2026 16:16:02 +0000 Bruce V]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27403.html
Don't get me wrong:  I write poetry of different types.  But perhaps "poetry" is dead, and now we are simply wordsmiths. So, how would you define poetry?]]>
Don't get me wrong:  I write poetry of different types.  But perhaps "poetry" is dead, and now we are simply wordsmiths. So, how would you define poetry?]]> <![CDATA[No good English poets]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27380.html Sun, 17 May 2026 13:21:15 +0000 busker]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27380.html
I used to like Eliot, but it's hard to buy the argument any more that a rational human being actually believed that the creator of the universe sent his son who is also him and another person, in a universe that's been around for at least 14 billion years, to be killed by a Roman provincial governor as a blood sacrifice for the first homo erectus eating an apple. Yes, yes, all that can be interpreted as literary allegory, but you can't base a faith around that. So all that strutting about in a suit and wearing a hat, taking a cab, smoking a pipe and sounding posh all amounts to nothing.
Larkin built his reputation on saying 'the world sucks' 11,345 times, when the main problem was that he lived on a damp island. All his poems have the same structure of saying something seemingly mundane yet profound about how the world is bad, and taking four stanzas in coming to the conclusion that things weren't going to get any better.
His is the template that a lot of modern poets seem to follow. Look at this one, for instance. The lines in green are marvelous, but try saying that in fifty other poems and you're basically just on a whinge fest.

Mower
The mower stalled, twice; kneeling, I found   
A hedgehog jammed up against the blades,   
Killed. It had been in the long grass. 
I had seen it before, and even fed it, once.   
Now I had mauled its unobtrusive world   
Unmendably. Burial was no help:
Next morning I got up and it did not.
The first day after a death, the new absence   
Is always the same; we should be careful
Of each other, we should be kind   
While there is still time.]]>
I used to like Eliot, but it's hard to buy the argument any more that a rational human being actually believed that the creator of the universe sent his son who is also him and another person, in a universe that's been around for at least 14 billion years, to be killed by a Roman provincial governor as a blood sacrifice for the first homo erectus eating an apple. Yes, yes, all that can be interpreted as literary allegory, but you can't base a faith around that. So all that strutting about in a suit and wearing a hat, taking a cab, smoking a pipe and sounding posh all amounts to nothing.
Larkin built his reputation on saying 'the world sucks' 11,345 times, when the main problem was that he lived on a damp island. All his poems have the same structure of saying something seemingly mundane yet profound about how the world is bad, and taking four stanzas in coming to the conclusion that things weren't going to get any better.
His is the template that a lot of modern poets seem to follow. Look at this one, for instance. The lines in green are marvelous, but try saying that in fifty other poems and you're basically just on a whinge fest.

Mower
The mower stalled, twice; kneeling, I found   
A hedgehog jammed up against the blades,   
Killed. It had been in the long grass. 
I had seen it before, and even fed it, once.   
Now I had mauled its unobtrusive world   
Unmendably. Burial was no help:
Next morning I got up and it did not.
The first day after a death, the new absence   
Is always the same; we should be careful
Of each other, we should be kind   
While there is still time.]]> <![CDATA[What poem or play]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27358.html Fri, 08 May 2026 06:48:19 +0000 busker]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27358.html
For me, it was Prometheus Unbound at age 12. Then Love’s Labour’s Lost, and the two songs at the end.]]>
For me, it was Prometheus Unbound at age 12. Then Love’s Labour’s Lost, and the two songs at the end.]]> <![CDATA[NAPM et al.]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27348.html Sun, 03 May 2026 09:20:53 +0000 rayheinrich]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27348.html and an old list of pros and cons of NAPM came up from a zillion years ago. Never one to
ignore rabbit holes, I went out and did some new searching and added it to the list. I'm
posting it here since NAPM just finished and I thought some people here might be interested
in these or have some thoughts brought about by this year's NAPM that they'd like to add
to the thread.
(I only, haha, posted one this year. But in the distant past I think I completed it twice and
came close another time or two, but pretty much burnt out after that. My congratulations
to the gold critters this year, it takes dedication and grit. For me, after the first week and
a half, it usually got pretty grim. Smile


Pro: A poem‑a‑day exercise gets people writing regularly.

Con: The pressure to write daily discourages many people, especially beginners, from participating.

Pro: Diverse prompts expand subject matter and push writers into new territory.

Con: Many prompts are too form‑specific or too obscure, which can discourage new participants
and beginners and also lead to shallow content, imitation, and “poetry voice.”

Pro: Writing to a prompt teaches discipline and the ability to shape creativity around a subject.

Pro: The exercise reduces perfectionism and helps people loosen up.

Con: This looseness becomes an excuse for sloppy poetry, for normalizing underdeveloped work.

Pro: The shared challenge builds community and participation.

Pro/Con: I love participating in NAPM, but it shouldn't be confused with outreach to new writers,
it's a marathon for insiders, for veteran writers.

Con: High‑volume posting reduces the quality of critique and encourages quick, shallow responses.

Pro: Writers end the month with a reservoir of drafts they can revise later.

Con: Many never learn to revise because the habit of immediate posting becomes impulsive and
after enough participation becomes a habit.

Pro: Prompts can help writers discover new forms and techniques.

Con: Overemphasis on form invites cliché and imitation. Discourages beginners from writing
from personal experience and knowledge.

Pro: The exercise gives confidence because it provides personal confirmation of one's ability
to generate ideas rather than wait for them.

Con: The pressure to produce daily can cause burnout, diminish the pleasure in writing,
turn it into a homework exercise.

Pro: NAPM can be fun, energizing, and creatively stimulating.

Con: Many prompts encourage cliché, dramatization, and hyperbole.

Pro: Prompts can help writers break out of ruts and habitual subjects.

Con: Prompts that push too far outside of lived experience lead to imitation of existing poetry...
and, beginners especially, tend to draw from the many bad examples they've read in the past.

Pro: The exercise can help new writers identify with the larger community of poets and writers.

Con: The pressure to write daily discourages many people, especially beginners, from participating.

Pro: The structure gives people something to look forward to each day.

Con: Writing daily encourages posting first drafts without reflection or revision;
leaves little room for deep thinking or careful crafting.]]> and an old list of pros and cons of NAPM came up from a zillion years ago. Never one to
ignore rabbit holes, I went out and did some new searching and added it to the list. I'm
posting it here since NAPM just finished and I thought some people here might be interested
in these or have some thoughts brought about by this year's NAPM that they'd like to add
to the thread.
(I only, haha, posted one this year. But in the distant past I think I completed it twice and
came close another time or two, but pretty much burnt out after that. My congratulations
to the gold critters this year, it takes dedication and grit. For me, after the first week and
a half, it usually got pretty grim. Smile


Pro: A poem‑a‑day exercise gets people writing regularly.

Con: The pressure to write daily discourages many people, especially beginners, from participating.

Pro: Diverse prompts expand subject matter and push writers into new territory.

Con: Many prompts are too form‑specific or too obscure, which can discourage new participants
and beginners and also lead to shallow content, imitation, and “poetry voice.”

Pro: Writing to a prompt teaches discipline and the ability to shape creativity around a subject.

Pro: The exercise reduces perfectionism and helps people loosen up.

Con: This looseness becomes an excuse for sloppy poetry, for normalizing underdeveloped work.

Pro: The shared challenge builds community and participation.

Pro/Con: I love participating in NAPM, but it shouldn't be confused with outreach to new writers,
it's a marathon for insiders, for veteran writers.

Con: High‑volume posting reduces the quality of critique and encourages quick, shallow responses.

Pro: Writers end the month with a reservoir of drafts they can revise later.

Con: Many never learn to revise because the habit of immediate posting becomes impulsive and
after enough participation becomes a habit.

Pro: Prompts can help writers discover new forms and techniques.

Con: Overemphasis on form invites cliché and imitation. Discourages beginners from writing
from personal experience and knowledge.

Pro: The exercise gives confidence because it provides personal confirmation of one's ability
to generate ideas rather than wait for them.

Con: The pressure to produce daily can cause burnout, diminish the pleasure in writing,
turn it into a homework exercise.

Pro: NAPM can be fun, energizing, and creatively stimulating.

Con: Many prompts encourage cliché, dramatization, and hyperbole.

Pro: Prompts can help writers break out of ruts and habitual subjects.

Con: Prompts that push too far outside of lived experience lead to imitation of existing poetry...
and, beginners especially, tend to draw from the many bad examples they've read in the past.

Pro: The exercise can help new writers identify with the larger community of poets and writers.

Con: The pressure to write daily discourages many people, especially beginners, from participating.

Pro: The structure gives people something to look forward to each day.

Con: Writing daily encourages posting first drafts without reflection or revision;
leaves little room for deep thinking or careful crafting.]]> <![CDATA[Dancing The Critique]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27316.html Fri, 17 Apr 2026 13:10:26 +0000 wasellajam]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27316.html

Quote: it is not hard, but like anything worth doing, it takes time. Here are some useful tips.

1. Read through a poem around 10 times before rushing to hit the "reply" button.
2. On the first pass, try to enjoy the reading. Note lines, expression, word choices, etc. that you like.
3. On the second and third reads, try to pick out things that detract from your enjoyment (awkwardness, poor scansion, line breaks etc) weird grammar or syntax, poor spelling, cliches.
4. On your fourth and fifth reads, try to analyze why the writer picked /specific/ words. Are there double meaning? Symbolism? If the writer picked orchids at a funeral instead of irises, why?
5. Use google. There may be some words or concepts you are not familiar with.
6. What is the central metaphor? Does the word choice the author used complement it? Does it contrast it?
7. See #6 and consider if the writer was trying to use thesis/antithesis, perhaps for allegorical or satirical intent. (note - all Shakespearean sonnets should use thesis/antithesis in the final couplet>
8. Read once more to enjoy the poem. Feel the rhythm, say the words out loud.
9. Make a recording of the poem and listen back to it. Note areas that give you problems in the reading.
10. Comment “I liked this" and rush to post another poem of your own. Hysterical

I suspect we each have some version of a routine that when successful allows us to really take the poem on a spin around the room, to know it better than before we decided to really engage.

How many of the steps listed above do you use, which ones? Is there something identifiable in your method that leads you into a useful critique when you feel unsure? How much of it is in your head before you start and how much is spontaneous?

I’m hoping at least one comment on this thread will connect with someone who is hesitating to the point of inaction.
Please, tell me what you do. Smile]]>

Quote: it is not hard, but like anything worth doing, it takes time. Here are some useful tips.

1. Read through a poem around 10 times before rushing to hit the "reply" button.
2. On the first pass, try to enjoy the reading. Note lines, expression, word choices, etc. that you like.
3. On the second and third reads, try to pick out things that detract from your enjoyment (awkwardness, poor scansion, line breaks etc) weird grammar or syntax, poor spelling, cliches.
4. On your fourth and fifth reads, try to analyze why the writer picked /specific/ words. Are there double meaning? Symbolism? If the writer picked orchids at a funeral instead of irises, why?
5. Use google. There may be some words or concepts you are not familiar with.
6. What is the central metaphor? Does the word choice the author used complement it? Does it contrast it?
7. See #6 and consider if the writer was trying to use thesis/antithesis, perhaps for allegorical or satirical intent. (note - all Shakespearean sonnets should use thesis/antithesis in the final couplet>
8. Read once more to enjoy the poem. Feel the rhythm, say the words out loud.
9. Make a recording of the poem and listen back to it. Note areas that give you problems in the reading.
10. Comment “I liked this" and rush to post another poem of your own. Hysterical

I suspect we each have some version of a routine that when successful allows us to really take the poem on a spin around the room, to know it better than before we decided to really engage.

How many of the steps listed above do you use, which ones? Is there something identifiable in your method that leads you into a useful critique when you feel unsure? How much of it is in your head before you start and how much is spontaneous?

I’m hoping at least one comment on this thread will connect with someone who is hesitating to the point of inaction.
Please, tell me what you do. Smile]]> <![CDATA[To Shut Up Or Not To Shut Up]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27313.html Thu, 16 Apr 2026 13:52:51 +0000 wasellajam]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27313.html

I've been thinking about why it seems to be so hard to get in the habit of posting critiques after a few reads of a workshop poem, even in basic. This has been discussed since the site began so obviously it's nothing new but I'd love to hear from current members in today's world. Do we not care enough to post? Do we care too much to post? These two comments caught my eye recently, so with permission to bring them up from the arse:

from Bunx
Quote:Not that it is a great excuse for me. I got pigpen up on my brother's old PC with the goal of giving crit and posting more. It's been a little interpersonally embarrassing how many times I've given crit then deleted, started an idea then deleted. I used to always prescribe to the whole if you don't have anything important to say than don't say anything. By this logic I am silent more often than not.

I wonder if anyone else feels similarly?

The other issue I have is having things fly over my head resulting in imposter syndrome. I feel like I need to understand the core of poem before I can hope to help make it better. Again not trying to justify myself but trying to list the barriers I have been running into as of late.

from milo
Quote:I always used to worry that I would come across as a snooty bastard or what not but in the end - it's say what you can or just shut up and shutting up is boring.

I'd love to post a poll here but I'm afraid you all will click and run. Smile If you've read this please take a minute more to comment. Time is precious but we all we waste plenty of it, what's one more minute? Thanks -ella]]>

I've been thinking about why it seems to be so hard to get in the habit of posting critiques after a few reads of a workshop poem, even in basic. This has been discussed since the site began so obviously it's nothing new but I'd love to hear from current members in today's world. Do we not care enough to post? Do we care too much to post? These two comments caught my eye recently, so with permission to bring them up from the arse:

from Bunx
Quote:Not that it is a great excuse for me. I got pigpen up on my brother's old PC with the goal of giving crit and posting more. It's been a little interpersonally embarrassing how many times I've given crit then deleted, started an idea then deleted. I used to always prescribe to the whole if you don't have anything important to say than don't say anything. By this logic I am silent more often than not.

I wonder if anyone else feels similarly?

The other issue I have is having things fly over my head resulting in imposter syndrome. I feel like I need to understand the core of poem before I can hope to help make it better. Again not trying to justify myself but trying to list the barriers I have been running into as of late.

from milo
Quote:I always used to worry that I would come across as a snooty bastard or what not but in the end - it's say what you can or just shut up and shutting up is boring.

I'd love to post a poll here but I'm afraid you all will click and run. Smile If you've read this please take a minute more to comment. Time is precious but we all we waste plenty of it, what's one more minute? Thanks -ella]]> <![CDATA[Writing Techniques and inspiration]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27206.html Sun, 08 Mar 2026 10:51:49 +0000 Magpie]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27206.html
Say for instance a list of verbs, weather, fauna, places, people, nouns, adjectives and food, then pick one or two from each list and then force themselves to write a song incorporating all of the choices.

Just wondering if anyone has used this kind of technique or anything similar to come up with scenarios and details when writing poetry.]]>
Say for instance a list of verbs, weather, fauna, places, people, nouns, adjectives and food, then pick one or two from each list and then force themselves to write a song incorporating all of the choices.

Just wondering if anyone has used this kind of technique or anything similar to come up with scenarios and details when writing poetry.]]> <![CDATA[What Do You Mean I'm Mispronouncing It?]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27151.html Tue, 17 Feb 2026 17:42:36 +0000 wasellajam]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27151.html
I’m currently struggling with "towards". This video really helped me when I needed to go past the pronounce button. Feel free to drop your problem words and solutions here.

]]>
I’m currently struggling with "towards". This video really helped me when I needed to go past the pronounce button. Feel free to drop your problem words and solutions here.

]]> <![CDATA[Which Foot to Start On]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27093.html Mon, 02 Feb 2026 21:04:50 +0000 dukealien]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27093.html
Is a newbie more likely to become a long-term member if the newbie's first submission for critique is to Intensive, or to either Moderate or Basic?  That is, in a purely statistical sense, is self-confidence or self-effacement a predictor?]]>
Is a newbie more likely to become a long-term member if the newbie's first submission for critique is to Intensive, or to either Moderate or Basic?  That is, in a purely statistical sense, is self-confidence or self-effacement a predictor?]]> <![CDATA[A Few Dont's by an Imagiste by Ezra Pound 1913]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27074.html Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:14:49 +0000 wasellajam]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27074.html


A Few Don'ts by an Imagiste
BY EZRA POUND

An “Image” is that which presents an intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time. I use the term “complex” rather in the technical sense employed by the newer psychologists, such as Hart, though we might not agree absolutely in our application.

It is the presentation of such a “complex” instantaneously which gives that sense of sudden liberation; that sense of freedom from time limits and space limits; that sense of sudden growth, which we experience in the presence of the greatest works of art.

It is better to present one Image in a lifetime than to produce voluminous works.

All this, however, some may consider open to debate. The immediate necessity is to tabulate A LIST OF DON’TS for those beginning to write verses. But I can not put all of them into Mosaic negative.

To begin with, consider the three rules recorded by Mr. Flint, not as dogma—never consider anything as dogma—but as the result of long contemplation, which, even if it is some one else’s contemplation, may be worth consideration.

Pay no attention to the criticism of men who have never themselves written a notable work. Consider the discrepancies between the actual writing of the Greek poets and dramatists, and the theories of the Graeco-Roman grammarians, concocted to explain their metres.

Language

Use no superfluous word, no adjective, which does not reveal something.

Don’t use such an expression as “dim lands of peace.” It dulls the image. It mixes an abstraction with the concrete. It comes from the writer’s not realizing that the natural object is always the adequate symbol.

Go in fear of abstractions. Don’t retell in mediocre verse what has already been done in good prose. Don’t think any intelligent person is going to be deceived when you try to shirk all the difficulties of the unspeakably difficult art of good prose by chopping your composition into line lengths.

What the expert is tired of today the public will be tired of tomorrow.

Don’t imagine that the art of poetry is any simpler than the art of music, or that you can please the expert before you have spent at least as much effort on the art of verse as the average piano teacher spends on the art of music.

Be influenced by as many great artists as you can, but have the decency either to acknowledge the debt outright, or to try to conceal it.

Don’t allow “influence” to mean merely that you mop up the particular decorative vocabulary of some one or two poets whom you happen to admire. A Turkish war correspondent was recently caught red-handed babbling in his dispatches of “dove-gray” hills, or else it was “pearl-pale,” I can not remember.

Use either no ornament or good ornament.

Rhythm and Rhyme

Let the candidate fill his mind with the finest cadences he can discover, preferably in a foreign language so that the meaning of the words may be less likely to divert his attention from the movement; e.g., Saxon charms, Hebridean Folk Songs, the verse of Dante, and the lyrics of Shakespeare—if he can dissociate the vocabulary from the cadence. Let him dissect the lyrics of Goethe coldly into their component sound values, syllables long and short, stressed and unstressed, into vowels and consonants.

It is not necessary that a poem should rely on its music, but if it does rely on its music that music must be such as will delight the expert.

Let the neophyte know assonance and alliteration, rhyme immediate and delayed, simple and polyphonic, as a musician would expect to know harmony and counter-point and all the minutiae of his craft. No time is too great to give to these matters or to any one of them, even if the artist seldom have need of them.

Don’t imagine that a thing will “go” in verse just because it’s too dull to go in prose.

Don’t be “viewy”—leave that to the writers of pretty little philosophic essays. Don’t be descriptive; remember that the painter can describe a landscape much better than you can, and that he has to know a deal more about it.

When Shakespeare talks of the “Dawn in russet mantle clad” he presents something which the painter does not present. There is in this line of his nothing that one can call description; he presents.

Consider the way of the scientists rather than the way of an advertising agent for a new soap.

The scientist does not expect to be acclaimed as a great scientist until he has discovered something. He begins by learning what has been discovered already. He goes from that point onward. He does not bank on being a charming fellow personally. He does not expect his friends to applaud the results of his freshman class work. Freshmen in poetry are unfortunately not confined to a definite and recognizable class room. They are “all over the shop.” Is it any wonder “the public is indifferent to poetry?”

Don’t chop your stuff into separate iambs. Don’t make each line stop dead at the end, and then begin every next line with a heave. Let the beginning of the next line catch the rise of the rhythm wave, unless you want a definite longish pause.

In short, behave as a musician, a good musician, when dealing with that phase of your art which has exact parallels in music. The same laws govern, and you are bound by no others.

Naturally, your rhythmic structure should not destroy the shape of your words, or their natural sound, or their meaning. It is improbable that, at the start, you will be able to get a rhythm-structure strong enough to affect them very much, though you may fall a victim to all sorts of false stopping due to line ends and caesurae.

The musician can rely on pitch and the volume of the orchestra. You can not. The term harmony is misapplied to poetry; it refers to simultaneous sounds of different pitch. There is, however, in the best verse a sort of residue of sound which remains in the ear of the hearer and acts more or less as an organ-base. A rhyme must have in it some slight element of surprise if it is to give pleasure; it need not be bizarre or curious, but it must be well used if used at all.

Vide further Vildrac and Duhamel’s notes on rhyme in “Technique Poetique.”

That part of your poetry which strikes upon the imaginative eye of the reader will lose nothing by translation into a foreign tongue; that which appeals to the ear can reach only those who take it in the original.

Consider the definiteness of Dante’s presentation, as compared with Milton’s rhetoric. Read as much of Wordsworth as does not seem too unutterably dull.

If you want the gist of the matter go to Sappho, Catullus, Villon, Heine when he is in the vein, Gautier when he is not too frigid; or, if you have not the tongues, seek out the leisurely Chaucer. Good prose will do you no harm, and there is good discipline to be had by trying to write it.

Translation is likewise good training, if you find that your original matter “wobbles” when you try to rewrite it. The meaning of the poem to be translated can not “wobble.”

If you are using a symmetrical form, don’t put in what you want to say and then fill up the remaining vacuums with slush.

Don’t mess up the perception of one sense by trying to define it in terms of another. This is usually only the result of being too lazy to find the exact word. To this clause there are possibly exceptions.

The first three simple proscriptions* will throw out nine-tenths of all the bad poetry now accepted as standard and classic; and will prevent you from many a crime of production. “...Mais d’abord il faut etre un poete,” as MM. Duhamel and Vildrac have said at the end of their little book, “Notes sur la Technique Poetique”; but in an American one takes that at least for granted, otherwise why does one get born upon that august continent!

*Noted by Mr. Flint.
Originally Published: October 30, 2005



This prose originally appeared in the March 1913 issue of Poetry magazine

Copied from the Poetry Foundation website. ella]]>


A Few Don'ts by an Imagiste
BY EZRA POUND

An “Image” is that which presents an intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time. I use the term “complex” rather in the technical sense employed by the newer psychologists, such as Hart, though we might not agree absolutely in our application.

It is the presentation of such a “complex” instantaneously which gives that sense of sudden liberation; that sense of freedom from time limits and space limits; that sense of sudden growth, which we experience in the presence of the greatest works of art.

It is better to present one Image in a lifetime than to produce voluminous works.

All this, however, some may consider open to debate. The immediate necessity is to tabulate A LIST OF DON’TS for those beginning to write verses. But I can not put all of them into Mosaic negative.

To begin with, consider the three rules recorded by Mr. Flint, not as dogma—never consider anything as dogma—but as the result of long contemplation, which, even if it is some one else’s contemplation, may be worth consideration.

Pay no attention to the criticism of men who have never themselves written a notable work. Consider the discrepancies between the actual writing of the Greek poets and dramatists, and the theories of the Graeco-Roman grammarians, concocted to explain their metres.

Language

Use no superfluous word, no adjective, which does not reveal something.

Don’t use such an expression as “dim lands of peace.” It dulls the image. It mixes an abstraction with the concrete. It comes from the writer’s not realizing that the natural object is always the adequate symbol.

Go in fear of abstractions. Don’t retell in mediocre verse what has already been done in good prose. Don’t think any intelligent person is going to be deceived when you try to shirk all the difficulties of the unspeakably difficult art of good prose by chopping your composition into line lengths.

What the expert is tired of today the public will be tired of tomorrow.

Don’t imagine that the art of poetry is any simpler than the art of music, or that you can please the expert before you have spent at least as much effort on the art of verse as the average piano teacher spends on the art of music.

Be influenced by as many great artists as you can, but have the decency either to acknowledge the debt outright, or to try to conceal it.

Don’t allow “influence” to mean merely that you mop up the particular decorative vocabulary of some one or two poets whom you happen to admire. A Turkish war correspondent was recently caught red-handed babbling in his dispatches of “dove-gray” hills, or else it was “pearl-pale,” I can not remember.

Use either no ornament or good ornament.

Rhythm and Rhyme

Let the candidate fill his mind with the finest cadences he can discover, preferably in a foreign language so that the meaning of the words may be less likely to divert his attention from the movement; e.g., Saxon charms, Hebridean Folk Songs, the verse of Dante, and the lyrics of Shakespeare—if he can dissociate the vocabulary from the cadence. Let him dissect the lyrics of Goethe coldly into their component sound values, syllables long and short, stressed and unstressed, into vowels and consonants.

It is not necessary that a poem should rely on its music, but if it does rely on its music that music must be such as will delight the expert.

Let the neophyte know assonance and alliteration, rhyme immediate and delayed, simple and polyphonic, as a musician would expect to know harmony and counter-point and all the minutiae of his craft. No time is too great to give to these matters or to any one of them, even if the artist seldom have need of them.

Don’t imagine that a thing will “go” in verse just because it’s too dull to go in prose.

Don’t be “viewy”—leave that to the writers of pretty little philosophic essays. Don’t be descriptive; remember that the painter can describe a landscape much better than you can, and that he has to know a deal more about it.

When Shakespeare talks of the “Dawn in russet mantle clad” he presents something which the painter does not present. There is in this line of his nothing that one can call description; he presents.

Consider the way of the scientists rather than the way of an advertising agent for a new soap.

The scientist does not expect to be acclaimed as a great scientist until he has discovered something. He begins by learning what has been discovered already. He goes from that point onward. He does not bank on being a charming fellow personally. He does not expect his friends to applaud the results of his freshman class work. Freshmen in poetry are unfortunately not confined to a definite and recognizable class room. They are “all over the shop.” Is it any wonder “the public is indifferent to poetry?”

Don’t chop your stuff into separate iambs. Don’t make each line stop dead at the end, and then begin every next line with a heave. Let the beginning of the next line catch the rise of the rhythm wave, unless you want a definite longish pause.

In short, behave as a musician, a good musician, when dealing with that phase of your art which has exact parallels in music. The same laws govern, and you are bound by no others.

Naturally, your rhythmic structure should not destroy the shape of your words, or their natural sound, or their meaning. It is improbable that, at the start, you will be able to get a rhythm-structure strong enough to affect them very much, though you may fall a victim to all sorts of false stopping due to line ends and caesurae.

The musician can rely on pitch and the volume of the orchestra. You can not. The term harmony is misapplied to poetry; it refers to simultaneous sounds of different pitch. There is, however, in the best verse a sort of residue of sound which remains in the ear of the hearer and acts more or less as an organ-base. A rhyme must have in it some slight element of surprise if it is to give pleasure; it need not be bizarre or curious, but it must be well used if used at all.

Vide further Vildrac and Duhamel’s notes on rhyme in “Technique Poetique.”

That part of your poetry which strikes upon the imaginative eye of the reader will lose nothing by translation into a foreign tongue; that which appeals to the ear can reach only those who take it in the original.

Consider the definiteness of Dante’s presentation, as compared with Milton’s rhetoric. Read as much of Wordsworth as does not seem too unutterably dull.

If you want the gist of the matter go to Sappho, Catullus, Villon, Heine when he is in the vein, Gautier when he is not too frigid; or, if you have not the tongues, seek out the leisurely Chaucer. Good prose will do you no harm, and there is good discipline to be had by trying to write it.

Translation is likewise good training, if you find that your original matter “wobbles” when you try to rewrite it. The meaning of the poem to be translated can not “wobble.”

If you are using a symmetrical form, don’t put in what you want to say and then fill up the remaining vacuums with slush.

Don’t mess up the perception of one sense by trying to define it in terms of another. This is usually only the result of being too lazy to find the exact word. To this clause there are possibly exceptions.

The first three simple proscriptions* will throw out nine-tenths of all the bad poetry now accepted as standard and classic; and will prevent you from many a crime of production. “...Mais d’abord il faut etre un poete,” as MM. Duhamel and Vildrac have said at the end of their little book, “Notes sur la Technique Poetique”; but in an American one takes that at least for granted, otherwise why does one get born upon that august continent!

*Noted by Mr. Flint.
Originally Published: October 30, 2005



This prose originally appeared in the March 1913 issue of Poetry magazine

Copied from the Poetry Foundation website. ella]]> <![CDATA[How Shakespeare?]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27071.html Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:03:08 +0000 busker]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27071.html
But in literature, we actually read Shakespeare and Milton. Why do we read Shakespeare? His plots are contrived, and theatrical dialogue is the opposite of real life. If we are to read him for the poetry of his plays, as some have argued, then what are we to make of:

 It pleased the King his master very late
 To strike at me, upon his misconstruction;
 When he, compact, and flattering his displeasure,
 Tripped me behind; being down, insulted, railed,
 And put upon him such a deal of man
 That worthied him, got praises of the King
 For him attempting who was self-subdued;
 And in the fleshment of this ⟨dread⟩ exploit,
 Drew on me here again.

It is torturous, long winded yackery. No doubt, being a stage man, this dialogue would’ve done well for the players of his day, but how are we to read it?
How do we read the ancients? Typically, as alien writers from a different planet.
Antigone is more interesting when read sitting in a theatre in Halikarnos than in the library.

How should we read Shakespeare today, then? I personally read Shakespeare for the poetry, and skip over the boring bits. But that brings to mind another question - how many Shakespeares have we not read?

You can listen to salieri and realise that Mozart wasn’t some unique hot house genius who created the only Melodies of their kind. He was a genius, but many of his Melodies were similar to other tunes of the day. Have we heard all of them? No, not even the ones that survive. Perhaps Shakespeare had many peers whose works were simply not collected and published neatly in a folio. I don’t mean Marlowe and Kyd, I mean writers who just weren’t preserved.]]>
But in literature, we actually read Shakespeare and Milton. Why do we read Shakespeare? His plots are contrived, and theatrical dialogue is the opposite of real life. If we are to read him for the poetry of his plays, as some have argued, then what are we to make of:

 It pleased the King his master very late
 To strike at me, upon his misconstruction;
 When he, compact, and flattering his displeasure,
 Tripped me behind; being down, insulted, railed,
 And put upon him such a deal of man
 That worthied him, got praises of the King
 For him attempting who was self-subdued;
 And in the fleshment of this ⟨dread⟩ exploit,
 Drew on me here again.

It is torturous, long winded yackery. No doubt, being a stage man, this dialogue would’ve done well for the players of his day, but how are we to read it?
How do we read the ancients? Typically, as alien writers from a different planet.
Antigone is more interesting when read sitting in a theatre in Halikarnos than in the library.

How should we read Shakespeare today, then? I personally read Shakespeare for the poetry, and skip over the boring bits. But that brings to mind another question - how many Shakespeares have we not read?

You can listen to salieri and realise that Mozart wasn’t some unique hot house genius who created the only Melodies of their kind. He was a genius, but many of his Melodies were similar to other tunes of the day. Have we heard all of them? No, not even the ones that survive. Perhaps Shakespeare had many peers whose works were simply not collected and published neatly in a folio. I don’t mean Marlowe and Kyd, I mean writers who just weren’t preserved.]]> <![CDATA[How we choose to write.]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27059.html Sat, 24 Jan 2026 19:37:58 +0000 wasellajam]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27059.html
My current dilemma: Tetrameter comes so easily while pentameter is a struggle. Why? It's often only one word difference. But that's not my question.

If one form comes easily and another is a struggle which do you choose (leaving aside for now, if possible, which suites the poem best)? Is it preferable to have the ideas rush out or to stretch and search and shuffle through your brain to satisfy the one that's harder for you? I'm thinking long run. Sure it's nicer to have 3 poems than one but what do you think might bring you to your goal of being a better poet sooner?]]>
My current dilemma: Tetrameter comes so easily while pentameter is a struggle. Why? It's often only one word difference. But that's not my question.

If one form comes easily and another is a struggle which do you choose (leaving aside for now, if possible, which suites the poem best)? Is it preferable to have the ideas rush out or to stretch and search and shuffle through your brain to satisfy the one that's harder for you? I'm thinking long run. Sure it's nicer to have 3 poems than one but what do you think might bring you to your goal of being a better poet sooner?]]> <![CDATA[The trochaic inversion]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27027.html Mon, 19 Jan 2026 15:54:04 +0000 milo]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27027.html
The most common substitution in English poetry by far is the trochaic inversion.  

What is a trochaic inversion?
For discussion purposes here, we will consider IP - iambic pentameter though it is useful by extension to all iambic meters.
In a standard IP line we get 5 iambs - daDUM daDUM daDUM daDUM daDUM
In a trochaic inversion, one of these is substituted with a trochee giving us a DUMdadaDUM somewhere in our line.
It is used to greatest effect at the beginning of a line, lesser in the middle and, dare I say, to no good effect at the end of a line.

Here is an example from Browning's Sonnet 43:

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height


The poem begins with it:

HOW do i LOVE thee LET me COUNT the WAYS - first 2 feet is the inversion

This is used to great effect here as it promotes the How which is the focus of the entire poem and sets our expectations. There was some debate about this at some point but this is generally accepted as the correct scansion today.

here is one from Shakespeare (Hamlet)

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer - here, it puts such a heavy emphasis on whether, it really raise the import and then allows us to skip along the next few syllables

In Frost's Birches, he plays with trochaic inversion a LOT, here is a mid-line example:

But swinging doesn’t bend them down to stay - perfect IP, I included this so we could get teh predominant meter
As ice-storms do. Often you must have seen them - This line reads quite strange and really showcases the problems caused by mid-line inversion.  If I ran into this line alone, I would struggle to know the author's intent.  Because the whole poem is predominantly IP we can see it should be :  

as ICE storms DO. OFten you MUST have SEEN them. - the inversion occurs on "often"

later in the poem, Frost uses four trochaic inversions to start lines in a row giving an insistence to the section:

As the breeze rises, and turn many-colored
As the stir cracks and crazes their enamel.
Soon the sun’s warmth makes them shed crystal shells
Shattering and avalanching on the snow-crust—

before reverting to more standard IP

Anyway, fun technique, you can add it to your own verse to add insistence and emphasis to lines ( I wouldn't recommend pairing it to an enjambed line but I also wouldn't complain if you made a great example that surprised me)



There has been some small debate about the difference between a trochaic inversion and the choriamb and if there is interest, I can go over that as well but for now:

Feel free to practice your trochaic inversions here:]]>
The most common substitution in English poetry by far is the trochaic inversion.  

What is a trochaic inversion?
For discussion purposes here, we will consider IP - iambic pentameter though it is useful by extension to all iambic meters.
In a standard IP line we get 5 iambs - daDUM daDUM daDUM daDUM daDUM
In a trochaic inversion, one of these is substituted with a trochee giving us a DUMdadaDUM somewhere in our line.
It is used to greatest effect at the beginning of a line, lesser in the middle and, dare I say, to no good effect at the end of a line.

Here is an example from Browning's Sonnet 43:

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height


The poem begins with it:

HOW do i LOVE thee LET me COUNT the WAYS - first 2 feet is the inversion

This is used to great effect here as it promotes the How which is the focus of the entire poem and sets our expectations. There was some debate about this at some point but this is generally accepted as the correct scansion today.

here is one from Shakespeare (Hamlet)

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer - here, it puts such a heavy emphasis on whether, it really raise the import and then allows us to skip along the next few syllables

In Frost's Birches, he plays with trochaic inversion a LOT, here is a mid-line example:

But swinging doesn’t bend them down to stay - perfect IP, I included this so we could get teh predominant meter
As ice-storms do. Often you must have seen them - This line reads quite strange and really showcases the problems caused by mid-line inversion.  If I ran into this line alone, I would struggle to know the author's intent.  Because the whole poem is predominantly IP we can see it should be :  

as ICE storms DO. OFten you MUST have SEEN them. - the inversion occurs on "often"

later in the poem, Frost uses four trochaic inversions to start lines in a row giving an insistence to the section:

As the breeze rises, and turn many-colored
As the stir cracks and crazes their enamel.
Soon the sun’s warmth makes them shed crystal shells
Shattering and avalanching on the snow-crust—

before reverting to more standard IP

Anyway, fun technique, you can add it to your own verse to add insistence and emphasis to lines ( I wouldn't recommend pairing it to an enjambed line but I also wouldn't complain if you made a great example that surprised me)



There has been some small debate about the difference between a trochaic inversion and the choriamb and if there is interest, I can go over that as well but for now:

Feel free to practice your trochaic inversions here:]]> <![CDATA[Do we need line breaks?]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27005.html Sun, 18 Jan 2026 09:23:43 +0000 busker]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27005.html
But pauses are also denoted by commas, em dashes, ellipses (ellipses?), semi colons, colons and fully stops.
Then why do we need line breaks?

If the argument is that a line break denotes a pause in thought, a point where we have finished a line and can reflect on it momentarily before diving into the next, that reflection being the essence of poetry, I think commas have the same effect.
For instance:

When you are old and grey and full of sleep, and nodding by the fire, take down this book, and slowly read, and dream of the soft look your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

Definitely looks odd, and placing a full stop after “book” would improve the line. But writing it out with line breaks misses that point. It’s better written out with commas IMO.

Or 

Though the night was made for loving,
   And the day returns too soon,
Yet we'll go no more a roving
   By the light of the moon.

Vs

Though the night was made for loving and the day returns too soon, yet we'll go no more a roving by the light of the moon.

The second one is better, and uses only a single comma, thereby saving ink and paper.

I don’t think there’s any reason to persist with line breaks, and all poems should be written out as paragraphs. The distinction between poetry and prose is subtler than just how it’s written out, and removing the least important distinction of form will help in disabusing people of the notion that poetry is prose with line breaks. Also, if it’s not relevant information, why are we teaching our AIs this shite?]]>
But pauses are also denoted by commas, em dashes, ellipses (ellipses?), semi colons, colons and fully stops.
Then why do we need line breaks?

If the argument is that a line break denotes a pause in thought, a point where we have finished a line and can reflect on it momentarily before diving into the next, that reflection being the essence of poetry, I think commas have the same effect.
For instance:

When you are old and grey and full of sleep, and nodding by the fire, take down this book, and slowly read, and dream of the soft look your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

Definitely looks odd, and placing a full stop after “book” would improve the line. But writing it out with line breaks misses that point. It’s better written out with commas IMO.

Or 

Though the night was made for loving,
   And the day returns too soon,
Yet we'll go no more a roving
   By the light of the moon.

Vs

Though the night was made for loving and the day returns too soon, yet we'll go no more a roving by the light of the moon.

The second one is better, and uses only a single comma, thereby saving ink and paper.

I don’t think there’s any reason to persist with line breaks, and all poems should be written out as paragraphs. The distinction between poetry and prose is subtler than just how it’s written out, and removing the least important distinction of form will help in disabusing people of the notion that poetry is prose with line breaks. Also, if it’s not relevant information, why are we teaching our AIs this shite?]]> <![CDATA[Why do you want critique?]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-26995.html Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:19:33 +0000 CRNDLSM]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-26995.html
I used the critique forums mostly for clarity, like I don't exactly know what I wrote and can't see all the angles.  Most of what I write I don't really care about anymore, just having fun with words, if I use the critique forums nowadays it's mostly so other people have something to crit, in order to post their own stuff, but also if there's lag in posting.

It's like waiting to eat, but I fill up quickly.]]>
I used the critique forums mostly for clarity, like I don't exactly know what I wrote and can't see all the angles.  Most of what I write I don't really care about anymore, just having fun with words, if I use the critique forums nowadays it's mostly so other people have something to crit, in order to post their own stuff, but also if there's lag in posting.

It's like waiting to eat, but I fill up quickly.]]>