4 ago 2005
We all have some unexamined idea of "good poetry." For me it's concrete imagery, emotional directness, and lyricism. Yet I feel that "good poetry" cannot be approached directly. It must be tricked into being, to quote Clark Coolidge. There are no short-cuts. For example, I don't believe in using too many "poetry words." You know, words like "shimmer." The "colorful" words that New York Times reporters put into the reportage. I don't believe any poem should have more than one "poetry word."
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
7 comentarios:
like ululation and undulation in the same poem. not allowed.
I like this post
"multitudinous seas incarnadine"
"Through bowers of fragrant and enwreathed light, / And diamond-paved lustrous long arcades...."
It's kind of sad that so many words can't be used anymore cause they are "poetry" words.
My personal rule is "keep similes at a bare minimum." Those things can pile up like dirty dishes. One, and already it has made my comment boring.
My rule is: find your personal "rules" and consciously break them.
And also: (or especially) find the rules that are commonly held and shatter them. Consciously. Especially the thing about similes.
Wrong similes that make no sense at all are, to my mind, especially delightful.
Anthropomorphism is another personal delight of mine.
I don't think I've ever used ululate and undulate in the same poem, surprisingly, although I don't see anything wrong with it. The two actions, I know from experience, go together rather nicely.
It's easier for me to say what good poetry is not than what it is. It is not, for example, boring or slavish. But ...
Nada, of course, can use ululate and undulate as often as she wants. So can John Keats.
Publicar un comentario