It seems to me, not a single poem with rhymes in your magazine. I am looking for contacts with poets writing rhyme poems. Very much interested in modern poets' perception of rhyme, attitude to rhyme poetry both as poets and readers. Would be very much obliged to anyone who could share views and opinions on the subject.
Thanks in advance,
Ilya Perelmuter, ilyaperelmuter@aol.de
rhyme
wordswordswords — July 1, 2011 - 23:22In my family, there was a longstanding artistic feud— which took on epic proportions over the years, in the way these things do— over the definition of poetry. My father, a Harvard English major, firmly entrenched in the literary traditions of an earlier era, insisted that poetry must have rhyme and meter, else how can you distinguish it as poetry? His foe in this debate was my cousin, whose freer, more modern conception of poetry endlessly rankled dad's sensibilities— to the amusement of the rest of us.
With this backdrop, my poetic roots dug into the fertile ground of both these traditions. I view rhyme and meter as challenges that can support my writing, give it a framework, introduce a rigor that my freeform poetry (though I hope not without rigor!) doesn't always provide. Or perhaps I should say that when I write without rhyme or meter (per se— I'm setting aside, for the moment, the whole notion of rhythm and sound, which are very important to me as a poet) I am more likely to fall into lazy traps, and generally be less disciplined in my writing. So i turn to my favorite form every now and then— the Shakespearean sonnet— at least as much to hone my skills as to revel in the joys of the form itself. And, okay, it's now something of a comforting tradition for me (I've been writing them, on and off, for 30 years) so it's like visiting an old friend.
On this subject, I continue to seek a terse and compelling definition of poetry to distinguish it linguistically from prose. One poetry-loving friend of mine suggests format alone defines poetry— line breaks and such. I don't consider that sufficient, though it may hint at a use of language that underlies the form. Something to ponder.
Cheers,
Ben
Many thanks to Benn
Ilya Perelmuter — July 4, 2011 - 00:38I'like to thank Ben for his reply, very interesting! It would be fine to read your poems, Ben, where can I find them? Best wishes, Ilya
ilyaperelmuter@aol.de
The sin of rhyme
Glue — July 6, 2011 - 01:02Here is where I stand on rhyme:
The film theorist and sometimes critic Andre Bazin called the addition of perspective "the original sin of Western painting". This was because perspective degraded the artistic medium of paint by attempting to emulate life. I think Bazin hypothesized that Man created replicas of life as a means of dealing with death's inevitability. Paintings with perspective in them became almost like pop-art in Bazin's opinion.
Bazin goes on to argue that photography and film freed painting from this sin. Photography allowed painting to reclaim it's divinity and emotional grandeur. This is why we begin to see surrealists like Dali and modernists like Picasso after the turn of the 20th century when film photography begins to take off.
I promise this somehow relates back to rhyming poetry.
In this sense, I see lyrical songwriting as an emancipator of poetry. Poets no longer need to introduce rhythm and rhymes, which the human brain naturally finds attractive and alluring.
The Greeks didn't have rhyming poetry and, as far as I can tell, the meter is uneven. I'm a history major so please correct me if I"m wrong, but I believe poets of the early Renaissance era added rhyming to their poetry as a way to be catchy. With lyrics in our songs now, we don't necessarily need poetry to rhyme. It's archaic.
Centuries ago, only the snootiest of the upper classes had access to music. Furthermore, the music did not have words so the poor couldn't properly appreciate it anyhow. I'm rambling a bit, so I'll end it now.
Bests,
Thomas.
rhyme is obsolete?
wordswordswords — July 16, 2011 - 00:54First, to Ilya:
Sadly, the only examples of my work in print (setting aside very limited-edition, handmade chapbooks! ask me.) can be seen in a work of short fiction called Harvest Tales & Midnight Revels: Stories for the Waning of the Year (1998, Bald Mountain Books), where they were thrown in for leavening in a book of Halloween stories. And yes, I was a party to the publication inasmuch as I was a partner in the publishing company that produced it. Now out of print, but used copies are available.
To Thomas:
Your perspective on art and artists is quite curious. You seem to imply that the history of art forms suggests a goal for art-- that we are moving toward a standard, or perhaps a perfection of art forms. You say "poets no longer need to introduce rhythm and rhymes," as though we have been saved from some horrible, stifling tedium (in the same way the washing machine saves us the trouble of beating clothes against river rocks).
While I recognize the historical artistic progressions you mention, I don't agree they represent something we might call progress, as measured in some absolute sense, from a lesser to a greater form. In any case, you immediately follow that statement with "which the human brain naturally finds attractive and alluring." I would argue that it is precisely because we find rhyme and meter attractive and alluring that there will always be a place for it in poetry. If I want to experience (as a reader or hearer) rhyme and meter, must I seek out lyrical songwriting? What if I don't want the musical part of the experience? Am I SOL? You say we "don't necessarily need poetry to rhyme," but can't I have it because I want it? or because I, as the artist, want to create it-- simply because it's my choice and satisfies my creative desire to do so? I should hope the answer is a resounding Yes.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm not dogmatic for rhymed poetry; I see the value of both styles. To that extent, I have benefited from historical innovations in poetry. But I prefer to see these historical alternatives as expansion, not progression. I will probably always write both rhymed & metered poetry as well as non-rhyming, unmetered (but not to say unrhythmic!) poetry.
You also wrote, "Centuries ago, only the snootiest of the upper classes had access to music." I think this is untrue and reflects the common cultural bias of history, which is told by the cultural "ruling class." That is to say, our history, as we tell it, emphasizes formal traditions which survived in the hands of the wealthy: expensive instruments, written records of music (since reliable notation began), and so on. Does that mean those without money didn't have music? Humbug! Music and humans go together like flowers and bees! Since who-knows-when, humans have recognized, sought out, and created music with whatever means were at hand-- from the simple percussive instruments of fists on the ground, moving on through banging of rocks, to hide drums, up to the grass blade blown between thumbs and the clay ocarina. I imagine there have been far more improvised or crude or "rustic" instruments than well-heeled, "domesticated" ones in our species' history! I think you're selling our species short. Music doesn't require lutes or French horns any more than poetry requires rhyme or painting should avoid the use of perspective. Today we simply have more choices in an ever-expanding toolbox of artistic expression.
Cheers,
Ben