"The basic unit of intonation in English is the tone unit. (Other names you may meet are intonation unit, information unit or chunk.) A tone unit is a stretch of speech which contains one nucleus. It may also contain other stressed syllables, normally preceding the nucleus." Geoffrey Leech 'A Communicative grammar of English' by Leech and Svartik. Longman.3rd edition 2002.
I wonder if in modern poetry, the use of enjambment, breaking the line in various ways, is in fact playing with the tone units of the spoken language?
When you read aloud a poem broken up regardless of the rhyme and rhythm factors, do you seek to make the break make sense, or place stress on the last word of the line, for example?
When you are writing a 'free verse' type poem, are you aware of how you would speak it?

I'm glad you've brought this subject up Freda, I've been toying with the idea of raising a thread on the issue for a while. My thread would have been called:

Enjambment - are some of us enjambing up the wrong tree?

I'm not totally sure I understand what you are saying about tone units; I do find the structure of a lot of modern poetry quite bizarre though.

To me it seems like the poet has carved the poem up into so many syllables per line, regardless of how you would read it or perform it. I find poetry like that very discordant - it jars on me because the reader has to work that much harder to find any flow or sense.

In particular, some people seem to think that any 10 syllabled line poetry is Iambic Pentameter and that any 5,7,5 arrangement of words is Haiku. I suppose the 'anything goes' nature of modern poetry might lead to that assumption. Not in my opinion though!

Don't get me wrong by that - I'm a great fan of free verse - it gives us so much more freedom to express ourselves in an unforced way. I just can't understand why people would want to force free verse thought into formal structures - it just doesn't add up to me...

Interesting question, Freda.
On the page the presence of rhythm, the incidence of any caesuras and enjambment are not as obvious as in performance.
And my own thoughts are that it depends (as so much seems to do in poetry) on personal preference.
A performance poet in our neck of the woods, Tim Ellis, writes many sonnets. But his performance of the form is quite "soft", leaning on the sense of the words, breaking with caesuras where required, rolling on lines likewise and scarcely touching the rhythm (which on the page would be seen to be iambic) or rhymes. It works very well.
My own style is the opposite. In performance I rely heavily on rhythm (what critics call "sing-song"), making sense subservient to it. Rhymes I stamp on heavily. Even where enjambment requires a lighter touch on end rhymes I nevertheless half-pause (a touch rather than a feel). To do any different would be ungentlemanly!

"it jars on me because the reader has to work that much harder to find any flow or sense".

C'mon Isobel, reading's NOT digging coal - unless you read the following -
Carlos Gussenhoven & Haike Jacobs are the co-authors of an academic book titled "Understanding Phonology" which attempts to throw some light on the science behind the sound of words - not just English. Get through its second edition without any bad thoughts and you're doing well. I got to page 4 before my head exploded. A sentence a day is more than enough but it is - errr, interesting?

In reply to your question Freda - i'm aware of how I would like my poetry to sound as if it was spoken but I've also looked at a language's constituents and how these constituents appear best on a page in an attempt to make something flow. It's not exactly experimental - or is it? Most of my current poetry/writing has been 'free verse' taking into account more than just the usual poetry suspects. Sometimes it works - other times it doesn't.

Language is ace.

My point is Darren - that if you are not laying down your words in the flow that you would like them to be read - then you are laying them down for the way they look on a page - you are sacrificing coherence for something cosmetic. Anything that distracts detracts - in my non humble opinion.

Thanks for the heads up about Gussenhoven and Jacobs, I shall avoid them like the plague. Or maybe I would find them an light read - we seem to have opposite opinions on most subjects ;)

Sorry John - I've just caught what you said about this. I'd say the opposite to you - but think that we possibly think the same thing.

How a poem is structured ceases to be important on a stage - it's all about performance and enjambment would be imperceptible to the average ear.

If many poets actually read out their poems the way they had structured them on the page, it would make for a bizarre performance :)

I think the structure of a poem on the page is incredibly important and forms part of what I would call the crafting. When I write a poem, I'm transferring my thoughts, my vision on a subject. The structure is an integral part of getting that vision across.

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong".
Oscar Wilde

Isobel, I find life far too dull when I start to agree with anyone!

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If your not end stopping your lines, your using enjambment. Whether writing in form or in free verse, if your concerned about the sound of your poem being read from the page; your most likely playing with tone units (with a few exceptions).

The poet doesn't have to know they are doing this, or know the title of what they are doing...

any more than rappers or hip hop artists have to consider their use of internal rhyme, or rather consider what they are doing as a technical skill that goes by the title internal rhyme.

Ah, Chris - the poet as free spirit, driven by inspiration, the words flowing freely from him/her without any need to know how or why. Lovely idea, isn't it.
It has happened to me sometimes, but those occasions when you hesitate, and think, 'how can I best express this?' are moments when having a little bit of an idea what tools are at your disposal does really help. Of course we don't need to know the formal names for these things, but it helps to be aware that we have options.
Some rappers actually do know the term for internal rhyme and have studied language. It doesn't hurt their work.

"Dr Ramsden cannot read the Times Obituary today,
He's dead.
Let monographs on silkworms by other people be
Thrown away
Unread
For he who best could understand and criticise them,he
Lies clay
In bed."

That's John Betjeman. He starts each new line with a capital letter, moves to a new line regardless of formal structure, in a way, but I think he is making a guide to where he will pause for effect.
I think Geoff Leech would say that he has broken it in 'chunks' because each of the little lines would quite naturally work as tone units.
Unfortunately as the long lines are long, the layout here will make other breaks,(ah no, it works ok.) but you can see Betjemans breaks because he has used capital letters.

Betjeman liked rhythm, but he's not above a little experimental verse like this.
This is the first of three stanzas by the way.

Freda, do I understand that 'tone unit' in this context equates 'information unit'? That it has nothing to do with 'sound' or 'quality' or 'intent'? Yes, I know that none of these can possibly be divorced from LANGUAGE, written or spoken; so I am making a real effort to ingest, and digest, this information. In free form poetry I have always struggled with my own effective line breaks, turns, etc. and with interpreting the line breaks of others, but I would never have called them 'enjambments'. I think that term really belongs to structured poetry of rhyme and metre where the 'thought' usually terminates at the end of a line.

So many disparate ideas are flying around this thread already. IMO, the page and the voice must be married from word one: what you see is how it should be read. Divorcing the two means that one or the other is weak, and needs attention. Manipulating the written line in performance is a cop out.

This is a good topic, Freda. And I think the above poem by Betjeman would read brilliantly exactly as written, if rendered by a sensitive and competent 'performer'.

Darren, 'Oscar Wilde' is never far from my hand, or my mind, but even he could get full of himself beyond endearment.

I think you've misunderstood me Freda, I made no mention of free flowing consciousness as poetry, nor did my point revolve around or have anything to do with a lack of consideration or poetic devices. Neither do I deride or think technical skills are unimportant. If I did I wouldn't have studied them myself.

What I was/am saying is that many people are using the aforementioned techniques without knowing a) that they are techniques and/or b) without using the titles of the said techniques or knowing what they are.

It is my contention that most poets use these techniques most of the time, subconsciously. Like I said if you are not end stopping your lines, your using enjambment, whether you know the title or technique. Likewise most poets concerning themselves at all with how a poem sounds, that are using enjambment have to decide where to cut the line.

This is often done on the basis or in part on the basis of sound (added clauses and meanings too). So with all that in mind, I'm not sure where the debate or point is to the whole discussion?

I also think that the breath of a line has been conflated with tone unit and the discussion is in effect more about the breath of a line, rather than its intonation.

But hey...each to their own and given the flat forum means of communication, we're all probably talking at cross purposes to differing degrees.

Heyho.

P.S

One in thousand rappers and hip hoppers may study language, but that in no way invalidates my point.

I am sorry Chris. It is easy to assume where people are coming from in this type of forum. My comment on rappers stems from hearing Lemn Sissay on the radio discussing internal rhyme and rap.
I put up this thread as I was following Stephens thread on experimental poetry and I though, what is this business of breaking lines on the page really about? I am not sure myself what enjambment means, (or enjambement, which word reckons is misspelt but I think thats the american english bias of word) People also talk of caesura, which I think means cutting off, so same difference? So I was wondering if people who shift to a new line in their poem are thinking of how it would be read. (except where they are doing the concrete poetry thing of making a shape on the page.) In prose we shift to a new line with a new paragraph, so poetry has always been broken up not only in the paragraph but also within the sentence. What exactly is the poet doing that is experimental in shifting to a new line? Ignoring the natural rhythm of the words spoken? Or emphasising that natural rhythm at the expense of any formal pattern? Or something else?

Cynthia, thanks for 'liking' the topic. I think Geoffrey Leech, talking about tone units, is trying to identify the basic unit of talk, as opposed to writing. That is, the way we group our spoken words, which is closely related to the meaning of our words. He shows how we place stress on what he calls the 'nucleus' of this unit, because that is the 'new' information in it. Stress in language is of interest to me because the natural stress we place on words is connected to the meaning we want to convey, not a feature of the word alone. Rhythm in song and poetry has to take account of natural stress, in my opinion.

Lemn Sissay is a very talented poet and there will hopefully always be people who study poetic form and poetic devices; phonetics too which is an interesting area.

There was an academic who gave a line from a hip hop track to highlight the phonetic use of an extra 'half r' in English.

Hold your hands in the air'r like you just don't care'r.

Phonetics isn't my area, Darren might be able to enlighten us with the technical title for that extra half r. In any respect I found it funny and quite joyous that academics of language were using hip-hop as by way of example. How times change :)

In terms of breaking lines and the whys of it. I think the question rather large and open ended. There's just so many reasons, many of them far from experimental, unless we regard free verse as experimental?

If concerned with the experimental, there will be interesting questions that relate to line breaks and clauses. I would guess Stephen would be the one to ask about this?

Enjambment is breaking the syntactic unit, a very mealy mouthed way of saying to run the line, rather than end stop it. It's been around for a very long time and was often used along with the caesura (a caesura is an elongated pause), to spice up metered poetry. So it's not something that only came along with free verse. That said it is used more commonly with free verse.

The device is used in differing ways, to achieve differing poetic objectives. It can be used in a metrical poem along with caesura to maintain metrical lines, whilst avoiding the otherwise imposing rigidity of end stopping, which draws to a close not only sound but the clause/meaning. It can be used in form or free verse to hide meaning or poetic thought 'around the corner' so to speak. All poets whatever their level have to finish each line somewhere. If they haven't end stopped the line, but ran it using enjambment, then the question is; why did they move onto the next line at a set point? If they are writing free verse and they are bothered about the sound of their poem, then the sound of line may be the reason wholly or in part. Meaning of course comes into it.

Enjambment is often used to confur additional meanings or clauses. Of cause whenever lines are ran or cut, meaning as well as sound can change. I apologise for maybe stating the obvious. Most poems can be taken and by simple alteration of the line layout made to sound and imply differing things.

Forgive me for using a duff example from my own poetry;

Below is the end of a poem that on the surface is about amateur boxing. It's actually about the governments cuts and what happens to our youth.

They're hitting out,
blinded to the damage being done
by cuts they cannot see,
this won't end well...a b c.

If it read;

They're hitting out,
blinded to the damage being done by cuts,
they cannot see this wont end well
a b c.

For me it's not simply a case of the sound that has changed. The meaning has clearly changed too. Irrespective of the poem being good, bad or indifferent.

So in the case above meaning for me dictated the layout and use of enjambment, but I was also trying to squeeze the best sound I could out of it also.. I tried to confer a double meaning in the line that ran. If I didn't run the line, I wouldn't have got that.

I waffle...

One thing you might be interested in Freda are techniques which alter clauses. Where words read one way, but have to be reinterpreted as a poem progresses. Line breaks, pauses or running lines can be crucial to such things.

Freda,
Having `done` english during the height of the anti-prescriptive craze I feel a little deprived.

I now only delve into the metric notational stuff when a poem doesn`t SOUND right.

The meter is so natural to English that I find myself (and I suspect others also) unconsciously reading down all those `chopped up prose` efforts for some resemblance to the old iambic pentameter.

However, so long as the thing has some sort of an identifiable rhythm
so what?

"It don' mean a thing
If it ain't got that swing..."

First things first... there's no ph in my name.

But this is an interesting subject. I often use line breaks as a form of syncopation - deliberately breaking against the flow to create a dissonance, as in jazz. Of course, it's not an exact analogy; so please don't try and use superior musical knowledge to say it's impossible. But I do try to put the unexpected into the line so as to keep the reader on their toes.

I also put my lines down as (to quote the poet John James) "bands of alternating colour" - so that each line leads the reader into new directions and possibilities. After all, the ideal poem is essentially one good line, followed by another good line, followed by another etc...

I don't personally see free verse as such as experimental anymore; though it may have been once.

There's also the question of the use of the page: open form, with its line seemingly scattered at random over the page, even sometimes at an angle or upside down for instance. This, in some ways, is an invention of the age of the typewriter, as are certain forms of concrete poetry. It is a poetry for the page, but less so for the voice. They can be read aloud, but there is also a loss of something.

Experimental writing can never be entirely divorced from things going on in the art world generally. So Charles Olson was writing his seminal works at the same time as Jackson Pollock was reinventing painting, and John Cage was 'treating' pianos and creating works using the I-Ching. (Jackson Mac Low used such chance techniques at around the same time.) Be-bop and free jazz were in the air, and lots of weird stuff was happening with regard to writing under the influence of drugs (William Burroughs comes to mind; but there were earlier precedents.)

Well that's my threepence for the time being...

Thanks for confirming what I thought Steven - that line breaks can be used to create dissonance and lack of flow; also that such poetry doesn't always lend itself to performance.

I guess some poets may do it deliberately for some kind of effect, whilst others just don't think the structure of a poem is important. What I was trying to say was that - if you are trying to write a poem that works in performance and on the page - then the flow (which you find within the structure) has to be important.

Surely a performance poem is ripe for a wide variety of nuances such as pauses, rich emphasis, variations in voice pitch etc etc. These cannot possibly be re-created by a reader without having seen the piece performed.

If a poem has natural rhythm, then it is obvious to the reader to merely join in the song of it when reading.

More obscure poems (phonetically or by their very narrative) will remain ultimately closed books to the general reader, and therefore open to much interpretation.

Well, yes, to a certain extent Isobel - except that in music, those dissonances exist to make the music you hear more memorable, and I think the same can be true in poetry too. In fact, synchopation of that kind is used extensively in dance music. And you find a very subtle use of enjambment in Shakespeare too, and that's often very memorable. But he's usually doing it against the matrix of iambic pentameter.

Yes Graham, a performance poem can be delivered in all kinds of ways, affecting its very meaning. On the page, the only way of getting across how you want it to be read, where you want the emphasis to lie, is in the structure - or so I would argue. And yes you can get it across on the page, in where you choose to end your lines, in where you choose to place your commas etc etc

Stephen, I'd agree that Shakespeare used enjambment to great effect, as do many modern poets, who aren't following the Iambic structure. I just question why certain poets chop free verse up into formal structure, regardless of meaning and flow. For me, when I'm reading something with enjambment, there has to be some self contained meaning within it, it has to hang together - it can't be just be divided like that to stick to a syllable count.

It's hard to discuss this without giving examples. I can remember a poem I read once where someone stuck to a formal structure that didn't fit the meaning within the poetry. One line ended up sounding quite lewd - it was unintentional but gave a comic twist to what was a serious subject matter.

Isobel Quote
line breaks can be used to create dissonance and lack of flow; also that such poetry doesn't always lend itself to performance.
Unquote

There are differing types of dissonance to take into consideration. For instance you have cognitive dissonance – something that can work on the page and in performance or fail in both depending upon the poem, the skill of the poet etc.

It can be argued that flowing poetry doesn’t lend itself performance as well as dissonance in terms of musicality. When a poem is very predictable in its flow, let’s say a poem has a very ridged structure – that can also be very painful.

If we have a metered poem with end stop for each line, that employs shoehorned/obvious rhyming couplets, then the de Dum de, Dum… well we have all seen examples of poor performed poems of this nature.

Musical dissonance can be jarring OUCH like the painful de DUM can. But it can be jarring in a good way. It can be used for various effects. It can be used alongside rhythm, set a context that is disturbing or highlights the quality of other rhythms in a poem.

There are no hard and fast rules – we kind of know this from experience, poets make all kinds of things work in all kinds of ways.

Steven Quote
I don't personally see free verse as such as experimental anymore; though it may have been once.
Unquote

I couldn’t agree more. Not sure how something could be seen as avant-garde when it is hundreds of years old.

Isobel Quote
What I was trying to say was that - if you are trying to write a poem that works in performance and on the page - then the flow (which you find within the structure) has to be important.
Unquote

Not always. And by flow you also have to include musical dissonance. A lack of flow or breaks in flow can make a poem or add to a poem; just as much as metre or being very rhythmical can. The same goes for rhyme, slant rhyme, consonance, enjambment, line breaks etc etc etc

It’s all about the using the right tool in the right moment. All techniques are just options, use a technique well and you enhance a poem, uses it badly and well…

Quote Graham
Surely a performance poem is ripe for a wide variety of nuances such as pauses, rich emphasis, variations in voice pitch etc etc. These cannot possibly be re-created by a reader without having seen the piece performed.
Unquote

Pauses long and short can be created in performance and on the page. Voice and pitch of course are not there in the same way, but other options do exist on the page. One obvious one being eye rhyme. You can also effect various effects in relation to clauses and the use of lines that are completely impossible to put across in the performance arena. Words that sound the same but are spelt differently to afford double meanings are hard (though not impossible) to put across in performance as well.

It is fair to say that there are techniques that are particular to both performance and page – each having its own advantages and disadvantages. That’s why poems can be written for either performance or page, it’s why poets sometimes have the same poem in differing variations for each consideration. Poems can of course be written in given ways to work well in both settings.

Isobel Quote
Yes Graham, a performance poem can be delivered in all kinds of ways, affecting its very meaning. On the page, the only way of getting across how you want it to be read, where you want the emphasis to lie, is in the structure - or so I would argue. And yes you can get it across on the page, in where you choose to end your lines, in where you choose to place your commas etc etc
Unquote

That’s not true. There are differing techniques that can be employed on the page that have nothing to do with either structure or layout; eye rhyme being one example.

In terms of the voice, how the poet puts across intention to a reader. I think, in that regard your not far out. I think structure, layout and grammar gives you the equivalent to the voice of the poet. Some may disagree with me here and I only say this in a woolly sense. But I think those things are roughly equivalent to the performance poets voice and delivery. To be fair I think that’s what you were trying to say? Sorry if I am putting words into your mouth, I don’t mean to. I just get the impression that, what you’ve said is on the one hard a bit out and incorrect, but in the spirit of things quite close to and what you mean fairly good.

Isobel Quote
Shakespeare used enjambment to great effect, as do many modern poets, who aren't following the Iambic structure.
Unquote

I think that’s definitely true.


Isobel Quote
I just question why certain poets chop free verse up into formal structure, regardless of meaning and flow. For me, when I'm reading something with enjambment, there has to be some self contained meaning within it, it has to hang together - it can't be just be divided like that to stick to a syllable count.
Unquote

Good and bad poetry exists in all forms and lack thereof. You get poor formal poems that use enjambment and you get poor free verse poems chopped or enjambered (I made that word up lol) into all kinds of nonsensical ways.

Techniques are just tools – nowt more than that. Some are for the page, some are for performance and some work for both. They are only as good or as bad as the poet using them; same as carpentry, or anything else.

You should have seen what I made in woodwork class as a boy, Jeez, it would give you nightmares! I used all the right tools – just not in any way properly and all without an ounce of skill, craft or higher purpose Haha.

P.S

For Christmas I hope I get the gift of brevity outside of poetry or gain a notion of laconic wit.

yea as 'IF'

LOL – I think you must be taking a leaf out of Darren Thomas’s book and reading too much Oscar Wilde!
Nothing you have said convinces me that structure is not important in interpretation from the page of how a poem should be read. Yes there are page poems where the poet has actively striven for dissonance and yes these poems should then be performed in the very same dissonant way. Yes, there are poems that employ rhyme, near rhyme and eye rhyme. These are more often than not at the end of lines and give the poem a natural structure akin to the structure you would find in formal poetry.

I’d agree that a lot of performance poetry flowing due to its very regular beat and rhyme can often sound naff, unless it is comical poetry, which suits this form. I’d also agree that there is a lot of free verse that sounds naff when it has no flow or attention to the sound of word combinations and their poetic quality.

No – you can’t get across the pitch of the poets voice, like you can’t get across the action of him scratching his arse mid performance – you CAN get across where the pauses should be though – and how well you deliver a poem is often about where you place the pauses. For me the structure of the poem is equivalent to stage directions. I’m just conscious that I often come across poems that are structured in ways you wouldn’t possibly read or perform them.

I'm not a big fan of that If poem - it's far too masculine for me ;)

Quote Isobel
Nothing you have said convinces me that structure is not important in interpretation from the page of how a poem should be read.
Unquote

At no point did I ever say or imply that structure in reference to page poetry was unimportant.

I disagreed with something very specific that you said.

You said;

Quote
f you are trying to write a poem that works in performance and on the page - then the flow (which you find within the structure) has to be important.
Unquote

The two are quite different.

Structure is often important in page poetry, but you said it HAS to be important. It doesn't. Lots of page poems exist where structure has little relevance. Some page poems exist with no grammar, specifically so the reader has to infer their own context and clauses. Such poems can be read in a variety of ways with differing meanings garnered.

So yes structure has it's importance when it comes to page poetry in general, but no it is not crucial all the time and some times it has little relevance. You said it MUST be important - but that's a bridge too far, that was my point.

I think we might both lose the will to live, because there must be a fair old chance that we, on a flat forum are simply talking at crossed purposes. In a way that probably wouldn't happen in person.

This reminds of a a Nixon quote;

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realise, that what you heard, is not what I meant.

It probably applies to the pair of us.

Quote Isobel
I’d agree that a lot of performance poetry flowing due to its very regular beat and rhyme can often sound naff
Unquote

Again that is not what I was saying or implying.

My point was that rhythmic poetry that plods, with or without rhyme can be awful; in the same way a lack of flow can.

Whether it was written for the page or performance is irrelevant and not the point.

I'm not coming at this pro page or pro performance - I couldn't give a stuff. I like both types of poetry when it is written and performed well. I dislike both in equal measure when it is nauseatingly bad.

Rhythm with or without rhyme is as much a part of page poetry as it is or can be performance. Meter that good old page device, can be employed brilliantly for the page or for performance.

It can equally be as duff as shoehorned rhyme that is awful - again whether that is written for page or performance - irrespective where that ends up on the stage or on the page.

To paraphrase Ray Charles. There are only two types of poetry. Good poetry and bad poetry.

So what's the point?

Rhythm and rhyme, rhythm without rhyme, metered or not, half rhymed, internally rhymed, dissonance or not. The same as other tools. They're just tools, only as bad or as good as the poet employing them at the time.

And we get loads of great performance poetry that uses dissonance and strange structures and breaks. We get the same from the page. We also get poems that are primarily about the content alone that come with little consideration in relation to structure. Trust me tons of page poetry comes in this flavour.

Oh just to add, free verse or form - again I just don't think it matters. All that poetry has to be is good (hehe easy said) and not shit. As basic as that sounds it's true and that simple. We get all kinds of good and shit poetry in all kinds of flavours. Including shit flavour and nonsense flavour.

If there is one thing poetry teaches anyone it is that you can't be too prescriptive. You can't say poetry has to be this or that to be good. Because if you do, someone will come along and make a mockery of the paradigm you, me or anyone else has constructed. Someone will come along and make great poetry from exactly that which we said couldn't or wouldn't work.

Isobel Quote
For me the structure of the poem is equivalent to stage directions.
Unquote

I think that's very often true.

Isobel Quote
I’m just conscious that I often come across poems that are structured in ways you wouldn’t possibly read or perform them.
Unquote

Mmm I agree. I think it's equally true of performed poetry though. I wouldn't have paused here or there, or I would have added a differing inflection there etc.

I think this is as much to do with the ability of the poet concerned, the subjective taste of the poet concerned and the ability and subjective taste of the one doing the listening or the reading.

But yea I agree - completely.

As for 'IF'

I greatly admire the skill and fluency of Kipling. I respect his craft and the technical application and imagination. To construct as he has a bird-song like call and response, of interspersed male and female ending lines of iambic pentameter. Well I can't deny his brilliance.

On consideration of the poems meaning however; I do disagree intensely with the poems message and think the content utterly patronising claptrap of the highest order. I also dislike the poets character and see him as a hopeless misogynist and arrogant imperialist.

Ultimately the poem sounds far better than it is imo, not because of its structure or lack, not because of how it performs, or because of how it reads on the page. No imo it's meaning is bollox.

What's more you'll be a man my son - I rather think not.

P.S

You don't have to agree with anything i'm saying at all. Flat forums...Mmmm. In being surgical/precise (something that I find important - no idea why) I realise I can be mistaken for thinking my opinion too important. It's a flat forum thing. If you could hear my voice - I think you'd know that i'm anal about detail and clarity and not up my own arris - hopefully me saying this helps get that across...

With regard to 'structure' especially in 'free verse' I thought this essay which I read a long time ago, might be useful:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/learning/essay/237852

I don't think any good poems are without structure, or form if you prefer. But some poets have absorbed a feel for rhythm and form and it comes out without them thinking of it specifically, others work at it either from already existing models or in some way 'impose' it on the poem. Either way produces good poetry.

Steven Quote
I don't think any good poems are without structure, or form if you prefer.
Unquote

Mmm that statement is fine if the operative word is 'I'.

but if you mean that objectively, then you have created an absolute or rule. Such a thing can be tested, quite easily.

if even so much as a case of one shows it to be false; then the claim is false.

If anyone seriously rates and thinks the one word poem below is good, then any objective claim is flawed...

lighght

The above has no structure or form. You can try low redefinition of the word structure and form, to cover the shape of the word or the setting such as on a blank page. But this is nothing more than semantics and irrational low redefinition. The above poem has no structure or form.

We could also test any objective claim like that by taking classic poems and altering their form and structure. If people still by and large felt one of two poems were still very good; once again it would dispel any objective claim like this.

Of course if you mean in your opinion -fine. Anyone can believe anything. If you mean, for the most part form and structure are key...but not absolutely required for a poem to be good or very good, then again, no argument here.

One thing worth saying which I think we might both agree on and which I think others may also agree with;

Structure/form is often important, perhaps moreso with page than performance. Though still clearly very often also important with performance. Just that the structure/form may exist in the voice and ultimately the mind, and not necessarily on a page at any point.

Quote Steven
But some poets have absorbed a feel for rhythm and form and it comes out without them thinking of it specifically,
Unquote

Important point. I've known poets who have written metrical poems, almost without missing a beat; without ever knowing what meter was. The same is true of poets using many techniques and forms.

I think they should put the clocks back.

Yes I'm losing the will to live :)

I didn't say that structure had to exist within a page poem Chris. All kinds of bizarre combinations of words constitute poetry on the page nowadays, with or without punctuation.

What I said was - that for a poem to work on the page and on the stage - then the structure was important. The structure is the voice of the poem to some extent, with all its stresses and pauses.

Of course this is just my opinion and you can choose to disagree and say my opinion is all a load of twaddle. It matters not to me. I shan't take offence and yes we would understand ourselves quickly over a pint of beer - especially if if I had my shepherds crook on me. Upon which note, I hope to see you at the Christmas Tudor, which is next week.

Do try to read a well structured poem, won't you?

Steven - I followed your link and found it hard to absorb. I shall revisit when I'm feeling braver or less tired.

Rock on Tommy!

Well actually you didn't say that Isobel. You said exactly what I quoted (verbatim) and your statement, like that of Steven's was pretty much prescriptive and absolute - hence my entire point.

If we alter what we say after the fact, intentional or not; the entire point changes. Or at least can change, like it did here.

I am anal over precision when it comes to making statements about how poetry works or does not work - particularly when it comes to prescriptive statements or absolutes (wish I wasn't but am).

Like I said any paradigm or rules that you, me or anyone sets; anything that says poetry MUST or HAS to be this or that etc...Well very often, a poet at some point or another will come along and tend to make a mockery of such; by creating poetry which blows such thinking out of the water.

Prescriptive statements, rules, paradigms etc fall from subjectivity and become objective by their very demands.

That is why you have to be very careful in this area. Objective claims are often testable.

Opinions on the other hand...well we all have them - subjectivity is a different matter. On that score, I agreed in essence with much that you said and some of what Steven said.

Not that it matters.

I'll see ya at the Tudor. Chat and such like restores normality - not afforded by flat communication methods. Sorry for being really anal on this stuff.

Is there going to be a read on the night or?

If so, I'll bring something...structured or otherwise :)

Hmm... maybe I have a much looser idea of structure than you, Chris. The one word poem is actually a recognised 'form' especially in vispo circles.

My favourite, in fact, is Ian Hamilton Finlay's

W/AVE

(Ave is Latin for praise, by the way...)

which was carved into stone as well as printed on the page. Decisions with regard to the one-word poem are every bit as formal (though perhaps not 'formalist') as with any poetry: what font to use, where to place on the page, whether to use colour or not etc etc...

Though if you think of form as just rhyme and meter then it isn't form. But form is just a set of rules or guidelines you use to construct a poem, and the rules may change for each poem.

!

!

I feel your second version was a marked improvement John. I suspect you probably hit the key a little harder, giving that subtle (yet much needed) emphasis. :)))))))

If brevity is the soul of wit, then John has it. A couple of the other contributions belong in the Valley of Our Souls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qePPPFANVPU

Jx

Yes, many thanks, guys.
I did feel the first post needed a little more elaboration.

Hey Steven,

I never said I thought form was just rhyme and meter. I certainly don't think it is just that. Haiku requires neither and is obviously form. Also I never said that all one word poems have no form. I think it is possible to argue that certain one word poems have a form.

eyeye

For instance could be argued in a certain layout to be be akin to a sculpture.

The point in my specific example was that it entirely lacked form/structure, unless you argued that putting it in the middle of a black page confered structure upon it? Or you argued that simply, by being one word or a poem it automatically attained form/structure? I don't buy into that, for me the example I gave has no form/structure.

Also if you take truely great poems where form has arguably played very little to no part and rearrange the lines, you very often still end up with great poetry.

This highlights the point that form and structure are not always important, usually or very often, yes. But not always - as was true with my one word example.

None of this is about saying form or structure are unimportant. It is about a differing point. That you can't be too prescriptive with poetry, that you can't tell poets or poetry what poetry has to be be with an absolute, what it has to be with typical paradigms or rule sets.

I'm going to leave things there.

John,
I do wish you hadn`t completely ruined the imagistic density of that full stop by placing that superfluous dash above it. Don`t you realise that the space above it was mind-space - room for the poetic imagination to run free?

Pure vandalism! pure vandalism!

If you create one word via needlework;

Struck-couture

Does it have?

And is it a poem? lol

please disregard.

tic...toc...

Yes - but you are still looking at the clock.

*sigh*

I was taught when I took speaking club in high school to not emphasize the last word of each line, but I must admit it was hard to do that. I loved reading the poetry. Some of the very famous poems, http://www.famous-love-poems.com/love-poems-for-him/ is a good example, were quite difficult to read without subconsciously emphasizing those last words of each of the short sentences. I mean they sounded so great! But i didn't want the sing songyness of it.

Is Tone Unit just another name for Phoneme?

Hi Jonnie, the answer to your question is definitely no. A phoneme is one sound. a phonetic alphabet is a list of individual sounds used in a language.
The definition with which this long thread began was about a stretch of speech which would be spoken within one breath, or maybe you could say as much as you would normally try to say before you take another breath. Geoffrey Leech was (as far as I understand what he means) trying to define a spoken unit that would be equivalent to a clause in written language, or maybe not even a full clause but just a phrase.
I am not quite sure what he means by 'nucleus, but it is something about all the words in that unit being clustered around a kind of head word.
Some kinds of modern poetry seem to be built not in stanzas or verses, but in ordinary prose. Then again, some would be ordinary prose but are laid out on the page as if you are meant to stop dead in the middle of a phrase, indicated by the line ending and a new line starting. (enjambement?)
Actually this kind of bitty layout is less common these days. I think poetry is actually getting a lot more readable and saying more.

Thanks Freda.