inversions in poetry

[billy]

just read a thread where inversion of some lines of poetry were mentioned. some for some against. i wonder what the general consensus was.

i think when ever possible, it's best not to use them, as always there has to be exceptions to the rule but for me an exception should a rarity indeed.

while poetry uses different rules than other styles of writing, it has tend to stick to the syntax of a languages era. in victorian time there was a fair bit of yoderism going on the same can be said of other times. plays written back then were often iambic pent with lots of inversion. since then it has changed. call it a trend or simply the fashion but it has changed. Using inversion isn't breaking new ground as much as digging up old ground. it reads well in a period piece such as a sonnet but even then it has to be a real period piece written in the same structure throughout. while a lack of punctuation doesn't hold up the read of a poem if done properly. inversion often makes the reader step back and do a double take.

the real big point for me though is this. it's deemed as a bad habit, as are cliche and other areas of poetry. why on earth not tell people that there inversion hold the read up or make them think of yoda. if after being told this they wish to ignore the fact, then fair enough. some would always tell a poet that I should be capped. ee cummins didn't think so but him thinking so hasn't changed the majorities way of thinking on the subject. inversion don't work for me and a capital letter starting every line doesn't either. people still use the caps thing and it's said to be a choice. most agree that inversion really is for the best part, a no no.

i say learn to write without inversion and once you can, you can start playing about with it properly. most who invert have no idea they are doing so. most who use cliche have no idea they are doing so.

[Erthona]

Rather than re-writing what I have already written, I'll just past this in from the poem that started the above new thread.

RE: The Wild Wind
Call it what it is, reversed syntax. English is a Germanic language although 60% of the words in English are derived from Old French. The reversed syntax came as a result of the Norman (French) invasion of 1066. To impress the French court poets wrote sonnets in English, but often reversed the syntax to sound "high falutin", like it came from the french court. Writing strictly in IP can often seem to force one into reverse syntax, as it is also not native to English, however this poem is not written in IP, but in "accentual tetrameter" as it is primarily devoid of any consistent meter; as such there is really no excuse for reversed syntax other than as an affectation, that is to make it "sound" more poetic like. I would advise avoiding it, just as I would advise avoid not capitalizing all "i"'. There is simply no rationalization for it, and it is affectation pure and simply.

addendum: The reason is simple why no inversions, it leads to less clear writing, and writing that is more easily misunderstood. If one is going to go to the trouble of writing something, then posting it for others to read, would that person not wish to be understood? If a person is purposefully writing to obfuscate, then they are not interesting in writing poetry, but in playing tricks. I do not mean this when it is used in certain forms such as satire, I mean when it is used to make one appear "deep" when he really has nothing of import to say, or to cover over his lack of skill.


Dale

[abu nuwas]

You use words made up of more than one bit. Why? It is too hard to know what you mean. Shame on you!

But if you must: it is constantly preached, that the reader takes away whatever he does, as he is king. Ambiguity is the order of the day. I spend hours wondering what, if anything, people mean. Yet of all things, it never crossed my mind that inversion was a problem. It is hard to believe.

The origin is immaterial. We find ourselves with the box of tricks that we do, and are foolish to deny ourselves some help, because of fears of being those affected. It has never occurred to me before, but I suppose as time passes and the language degrades more, that will become true --if people choose to make such assumptions. Why they would not feel the same about any other poetic device, I cannot imagine. It is inconsistent. So there are two very different views. Poor Loretta must wonder what she has stumbled into.

---

just read a thread where inversion of some lines of poetry were mentioned. some for some against. i wonder what the general consensus was.

i think when ever possible, it's best not to use them, as always there has to be exceptions to the rule but for me an exception should a rarity indeed.

while poetry uses different rules than other styles of writing, it has tend to stick to the syntax of a languages era. in victorian time there was a fair bit of yoderism going on the same can be said of other times. plays written back then were often iambic pent with lots of inversion. since then it has changed. call it a trend or simply the fashion but it has changed. Using inversion isn't breaking new ground as much as digging up old ground. it reads well in a period piece such as a sonnet but even then it has to be a real period piece written in the same structure throughout. while a lack of punctuation doesn't hold up the read of a poem if done properly. inversion often makes the reader step back and do a double take.

the real big point for me though is this. it's deemed as a bad habit, as are cliche and other areas of poetry. why on earth not tell people that there inversion hold the read up or make them think of yoda. if after being told this they wish to ignore the fact, then fair enough. some would always tell a poet that I should be capped. ee cummins didn't think so but him thinking so hasn't changed the majorities way of thinking on the subject. inversion don't work for me and a capital letter starting every line doesn't either. people still use the caps thing and it's said to be a choice. most agree that inversion really is for the best part, a no no.

i say learn to write without inversion and once you can, you can start playing about with it properly. most who invert have no idea they are doing so. most who use cliche have no idea they are doing so.

Billy, there is something quite frightening about being constrained by ''people now think..'' or worries about what to-day's general consensus might be. Such things are the bane of contemporary writing, imperceptibly pushed by peer-pressure into a kind of sameyness, each thing different, yet somehow the same. Illiterate educators in cursed Creative Writing schools shoulder a part of the blame; the rest is that tendency of people to lazily get in step with the marching morons. If you catch my drift.

[ellajam]

I understand Loretta's reluctance to give up her reversed syntax.

Here is one of mine where I loved the sound of those lines that folded in on themselves. My attempt to straighten out the syntax resulted in a lifeless blob. A better poet may have pulled it off, but I guess a better poet wouldn't have written the original. Still, it became worse, not better.

I've been learning IP lately and trying to keep a natural speech pattern. It's fun and interesting, but poetically I think it's the step backwards that hopefully will lead to two forward.

I agree with billy that it's important to recognize inversion in my work and if I want to use it i need to control it to the poem's advantage.

[billy]

Billy, there is something quite frightening about being constrained by ''people now think..'' or worries about what to-day's general consensus might be. Such things are the bane of contemporary writing, imperceptibly pushed by peer-pressure into a kind of sameyness, each thing different, yet somehow the same. Illiterate educators in cursed Creative Writing schools shoulder a part of the blame; the rest is that tendency of people to lazily get in step with the marching morons. If you catch my drift.

i say it as a guideline. it's like cliche. most people see cliche as something to avoid because they've heard/read it before. now and again it works but as a rule of thumb [for me] a cliched poem is a sign of a less well written poem.

inverted syntax [for me] has been and come and gone. if i read a sonnet of old, i know some, probably many of the lines will be inverted at the end. when i see the same thing in a modern poem it reads as not so good. it isn't how my brain is set up to think. i have myself on many occasion used inversion because i went with the majority of how poets wrote poetry. i saw that it wasn't my language after a while and try to remove any i do. some still slips through but i don't want it to slip through. the same as i don't want cliche to slip through. we're a workshop. do we say "hey nice inversion, btw your poems sucks" inversion {again for me} is most often an indicator that the poem will have a lot of faults. more than not the poem does have more than a nominal amount of shite littered through it. i've written enough shite to last me a life time and am to some small degree a connoisseur of shite poetry. when we {i say} such and such a line is inverted, i so because the reading of such a line seems odd to me.

yes, i learned this because others told me the same thing but i'm a big boy now and found that i agreed with them. not everyone needs to agree or accept but i have a sneaky feeling that those who continue to write yoderish text will forever bee doomed to being a newb poet. there may be a gem that comes along now and again but they'll be very few and far between. no one who normally writes with inversion on this site can call themselves good poets. but the poets who are good poets on this site and i don't see myself as one of them, don't invert unless for a very good reason is it.

---

there's inversion and inversion there is. the latter screams out "put me the right fucking way round" the former silently say " i'm a clever bastard"
i just read your ville and i'd say it's of the latter style. i enjoyed it and saw little problem re inversion. to me inversion sticks it's tongue out at you and slaps you in the face with a wet fish as it pees it's pants

I understand Loretta's reluctance to give up her reversed syntax.

Here is one of mine where I loved the sound of those lines that folded in on themselves. My attempt to straighten out the syntax resulted in a lifeless blob. A better poet may have pulled it off, but I guess a better poet wouldn't have written the original. Still, it became worse, not better.

I've been learning IP lately and trying to keep a natural speech pattern. It's fun and interesting, but poetically I think it's the step backwards that hopefully will lead to two forward.

I agree with billy that it's important to recognize inversion in my work and if I want to use it i need to control it to the poem's advantage.

[ChristopherSea]

Yes, inversions were used all the time in classic poetry. No, I don't think folks use it today to be more poetic or mimic the masters. More than likely, it is a device or habit to align rhymes. However, like anything, when used sparingly, it is probably alright.

[Caleb Murdock]

Boy, do I feel strongly about this!

The poet has various tools at his or her disposal, and inversions are one of them. I agree that inversions CAN stick out, but not always. A poet who is writing in meter and/or form may need to use inversions more in order to fit the meter or form, whereas a free-verse poet won't need to use them so much.

I posted a poem "Youth" (which was deleted while I was "banned") which had these lines:

Implies powers no longer mine —
```Not ever mine, perhaps,
Nor theirs now, though it appears so
```To hungry mortal eyes

Like mine, mesmerized by the sight
```Of youth's trail vanishing.
Yet if youth could be mine today,
```It would be in my way.

The one person who commented on the poem suggested that I write the sixth line "Of youth's vanishing trail", but to me it sounds more beautiful the way it is.

I recently finished a poem that has these lines:

And when the animal has left
Remains the intellectual disgrace

A poet friend of mine doesn't like the second line, feeling that it should be written "The intellectual disgrace remains"; but again, to me that is far less beautiful and interesting.

Inversions are out of fashion now, but they will come back into fashion some day. I'm not saying that they should be used for the sake of using them; but there are times when they really do contribute to the beauty of the poem. Inversions can have a haunting or unpredictable quality if they are done right.

In the Youth poem above, the first line of the top stanza used to say "Bespeaks powers no longer mine", but I changed it to "implies" at the urging of the person who gave me the critique. "Implies" works well enough, but it doesn't have the forceful sound of "bespeaks". "Bespeaks" isn't even an archaic word, yet I can't use it without sounding old-fashioned!

As for capitalization, which I think that Billy mentioned: I got into the habit of capitalizing the first word of each new line just as a way of cueing the reader that the line break was intentional, and that a new line was starting. Now I use first-word capitalization in poems with a formal sound, and lower-case in poems with an informal sound.

[billy]

sorry caleb but

And when the animal has left
Remains the intellectual disgrace

reads like jibberish, feel free to repost your poem but please don't attack people who leave you feedback ? mod
as for cuing the reader that a line break occurred; the end of the line does that along with punctuation if used. if no punctuation is used then every line with a cap 1st letter reads as a new sentence which they may not be, this gives a reader a longer pause than needed.

---

and if you don't wish to use someone's advice that's okay. feedback is generally another person's POV that you don't have to follow. if you want to use inversion then use it, same with cliche but be prepared to have some poeple say it doesn't work for them.

[Caleb Murdock]

Those are only two lines from the poem; I wouldn't expect you to understand them. I didn't quote more because the poem is rather involved.

This isn't the place to discuss what happened before.

[billy]

i wasn't discussing it

[abu nuwas]

I have never seen a 'Starwars' film, but I see that 'Yoda', so often used to mock with, is a rather childish looking puppet, who, it seems, speaks back-wards : if you wish, there is a 'yoda' generator, which will put whatever text you type, into this style. Perhaps the film-maker was not exposed to much tuition, and this was his ignorant response.

You mention several times that inversion is 'like cliché', and then go on to attack cliché. A fresh insight might be to reflect on the necessity of cliché, since we all use it. A fresh response might have addressed my question about metaphor and alliteration being given a free pass, and in fact lauded to the Heavens, while 'people to-day' despise and jeer at inversion.

It also fails, for you, because you see it as an indicator of dross to follow. So criticise the dross - the inversion is quite a separate thing.

Most irrational of all, you hold that if you read 'a sonnet of old' ('old sonnet', surely, old bean?) , that's OK. you expect that sort of language. But if done now -yuk, affected and I don't know what; just not the thing. Seems sensible, right? But wait! In the land of the Pig, we judge only on the words before us, the intended meaning is irrelevant, the author is irrelevant, only the bare piece counts. No notes, no need to know author, let alone when s/he was writing. Could be now, could be five hundred years ago, or one hundred or fifty. We may not even know whether they wrote before or after the date for 'inversion-acceptability' - which would have been when, btw? So you do not have (or need) the information required to tell you whether you may like or must feel embarrassed by all this 'yoda'.

To cap it all, you concede that it is OK sometimes. What! So how might that work? If all you are saying, is don't write rubbish, good luck with that. Leave inversion out of it.

I scarcely post here, but cannot help but thing that the more 'tut tuts' you introduce -little mini-taboos, while sailing under the colours of no rules, the less likely are people to write in an original way. I also looked at Ella's thing, and it sure ain't perfick, but her seeming ability to use words, even bordering on the flowery, contrasted with a lot of more self-conscious, slightly gritty, boring, samey dross.

I blame Dale for this. He is the nicest bloke, but that Erthona is a complete prick, who has probably ruined Loretta's chances.....

[ellajam]

I blame milo.

[milo]

Inversion and cliche, unlike poetic devices are just sloppy writing. Old poems inverted because the diction at the time was different. You may as well write in "thee"'s and "thous"'s and call it a poetic tool. Inversion is used almost exclusively when writer is attempting to use rhyme or meter but lacks the tools or finesse to do it properly so it inevitably sounds forced. Better not to invert until you learn to use rhyme and meter properly.

If you "think it sounds better" when it is inverted, there is a chance you just need to read more poetry.

[ellajam]

Inversion and cliche, unlike poetic devices are just sloppy writing. Old poems inverted because the diction at the time was different. You may as well write in "thee"'s and "thous"'s and call it a poetic tool. Inversion is used almost exclusively when writer is attempting to use rhyme or meter but lacks the tools or finesse to do it properly so it inevitably sounds forced. Better not to invert until you learn to use rhyme and meter properly.

If you "think it sounds better" when it is inverted, there is a chance you just need to read more poetry.

See, I knew I could blame you . Seriously, having you ask me to justify each word and phrase is a learning experience worth far more than any individual poem.

[abu nuwas]

Inversion and cliche, unlike poetic devices are just sloppy writing. Old poems inverted because the diction at the time was different. You may as well write in "thee"'s and "thous"'s and call it a poetic tool. Inversion is used almost exclusively when writer is attempting to use rhyme or meter but lacks the tools or finesse to do it properly so it inevitably sounds forced. Better not to invert until you learn to use rhyme and meter properly.

If you "think it sounds better" when it is inverted, there is a chance you just need to read more poetry.

It seems that that you and Billy both find it difficult to sustain your argument without harnessing inversion with cliché. Your first sentence is purely arbitrary, an assertion with no support. Your third sentence betrays an understandable ignorance: it may be that, beyond the Quakers, ''thee'' is finished in N America, but it lives in the north of England. The Kaiser Chiefs and Arctic Monkeys both use them, so yes, I might too, and have, to be mocked in just the same fashion.

Certainly inversion makes it more probable that a suitable rhyme will be available, and certainly, it can help with meter. So what? Most of us lack the skills tools and what-have-you, to write perfectly. But having made your case with such force and logic, you then decide, that when one has learnt how to use rhyme/meter ''properly'' -- then, it is OK to invert! Whatever happened to the sloppy writing? Tsk, tsk.

Poetic devices -- good when the fashion says so, bad when fashion changes. In your eyes, fashion no longer approves inversion, yet, although equally unusual in speech, alliteration and a hundred other tricks get off the hook. Who cares that poets down the ages have used archaistic language? Who cares that for the general population, as with peoples of other cultures to-day, and long-gone, expects poetry to be like that. You sneer at me, you sneer at them. Why is poetry no longer popular? Because those who do it, do it for their own little clique, in exactly the same way that modern ''classical'' music has become the preserve of a self-congratulating coterie.

I think you inadvertently left out some words at the end of your final, clinching, paragraph. Surely you mean that I should read more poetry of the sort of which you approve? It seems that the battle has been lost for poor Ella -- she must heed the dead hand of close reading forever. How far does that go back? A hundred years?

Have a nice day now!

[ellajam]

It seems that the battle has been lost for poor Ella -- she must heed the dead hand of close reading forever. How far does that go back? A hundred years?

Have a nice day now!

Don't you worry about me, , I have no problem going back to a less edited version when I'm done, if that's the one I prefer. All critique is up to the poet to take or leave.

[Leanne]

There is no rule in poetry that says syntax must be formal and regular; even in prose, syntax can be altered to suit passive or active voice, for example. However -- and this is a big one -- if there's no purpose for it except to force a line into meter or rhyme (or worse yet, to sound more poetic) then, like any technique in a similar situation, it's being misused.

Posting on a workshop, one must expect that comments are occasionally going to focus on word choice and order. As with everything, the writer need not make changes as there is no requirement to heed advice. Good common sense would suggest that if several people find a phrase awkward (tortured, even), it is not a bad idea to kill the baby you've grown so irrationally attached to and substitute something that isn't going to draw attention away from the important parts of the poem (or the poem overall). Until your poetry reaches a level of expertise where wordplay and altered syntax are achieved with great facility, perhaps it's not a bad idea to listen to suggestions.

On the other side of the coin, commenters need to be wary of jumping on trend bandwagons and just seconding motions put forward by other commenters. In poetry as in life, thinking for oneself is essential -- as long as you've paid enough attention to the thoughts of others that you don't just go spouting their prejudices as if they're facts.

In short: inverted syntax is not poetic, it's just inverted syntax. If that syntax is inverted in such a way that meaning can still be extracted without causing extreme pain on the part of the reader, then it's probably ok. Having said that, a very high proportion of inversion that I have seen on this site falls into the painful category. Please stop it, it's mean.

[milo]

Inversion and cliche, unlike poetic devices are just sloppy writing. Old poems inverted because the diction at the time was different. You may as well write in "thee"'s and "thous"'s and call it a poetic tool. Inversion is used almost exclusively when writer is attempting to use rhyme or meter but lacks the tools or finesse to do it properly so it inevitably sounds forced. Better not to invert until you learn to use rhyme and meter properly.

If you "think it sounds better" when it is inverted, there is a chance you just need to read more poetry.

It seems that that you and Billy both find it difficult to sustain your argument without harnessing inversion with cliché. Your first sentence is purely arbitrary, an assertion with no support.

I don't think you need to harness inversion to cliche but I thought we could kill 2 birds with one stone.

The first sentence shouldn't need support but I suppose I could provide it - poetic tools suit a specific purpose under the control of the writer. There really isn't any purpose for inversion other than to invoke a period piece so it isn't a poetic tool.

Your third sentence betrays an understandable ignorance: it may be that, beyond the Quakers, ''thee'' is finished in N America, but it lives in the north of England. The Kaiser Chiefs and Arctic Monkeys both use them, so yes, I might too, and have, to be mocked in just the same fashion.

saying that people use "thee"s and "thou"s, doesn't make their usage a poetic tool so as for ignorance, you may wish to address the whole sentence.

Certainly inversion makes it more probable that a suitable rhyme will be available, and certainly, it can help with meter. So what? Most of us lack the skills tools and what-have-you, to write perfectly. But having made your case with such force and logic, you then decide, that when one has learnt how to use rhyme/meter ''properly'' -- then, it is OK to invert! Whatever happened to the sloppy writing? Tsk, tsk.

if one learns how to do it, one won't invert. It is my sekrit goal to eradicate it through education. shhh . . don't tell anyone.

Poetic devices -- good when the fashion says so, bad when fashion changes. In your eyes, fashion no longer approves inversion, yet, although equally unusual in speech, alliteration and a hundred other tricks get off the hook. Who cares that poets down the ages have used archaistic language? Who cares that for the general population, as with peoples of other cultures to-day, and long-gone, expects poetry to be like that. You sneer at me, you sneer at them. Why is poetry no longer popular? Because those who do it, do it for their own little clique, in exactly the same way that modern ''classical'' music has become the preserve of a self-congratulating coterie.

all of these arguments seem irrationally tacked on without supporting inversion just in order to exhaust anyone from answering them all individually.

the chance of alliteration occurring in speech is actually pretty good at 1:13 for every word the chances of it occurring at least once in every average length conversation are excellent. Archaic language wasn't archaic when it was used. Poetry is as popular today as it has ever been, probably more so. If inversion is used as a poetic tool to somehow strengthen meaning or language or provide additional depth than it should be used. If not, it should be eliminated.

I think you inadvertently left out some words at the end of your final, clinching, paragraph. Surely you mean that I should read more poetry of the sort of which you approve? It seems that the battle has been lost for poor Ella -- she must heed the dead hand of close reading forever. How far does that go back? A hundred years?

Have a nice day now!

I surely /don't/ mean to that anyone should read more poetry of which i approve. Often, reading score (or hundreds) of poorly written inverted phrases helps a writer see why it is weak, or poorly written.

Perhaps now that you have finished sneering at those who speak against inversion, you can explain how this "poetic device" improves a poem?

[Erthona]

Abu never has found an argument he didn't like Although I think he may have meant "Loretta" instead of "ella" who is accomplished enough to not need remedial instruction.

Grammatical rules are there for a reason; they make writing more easily understood and less prone to error. Once one has learned how to write clearly (which I think one must concede is difficult in poetry) one can do whatever one will (one may also shoot up heroin if one will). However, in the early stages (as in Loretta's case) one should stay away from discussions of nuance and personal preference if one is going to render the most valuable help.

Abu, you are as guilty as milo in your argument. You put forward the mostly archaic "thee", "thou" argument. However, there is a correct and incorrect way to use such, I am unaware of a correct and incorrect way in which to use inversion. Inversion is the incorrect form of syntax for English, it is the correct form of syntax for the Romance languages. Inversion is most heavily used after the Norman conquest, and gets less and less from that point. Why? I guess we no longer care to imitate the French as a form of appeasement


Dale the nice, not Erthona the mean!

[ChristopherSea]

I contend you not erthona, but I do question the Yodite Dale, who I thought was a proponent of the inversion. Didn't you tell me that it was necessary for maintaining certain meters and stylized poems of yours?