Hi there i've been wrestling with a Sestina for a while and it's a bit of a bugger to be honest.. but one thing I can't work out is whether there should be a syllable count or not in the lines... at the moment it feels a bit too wooly to me and I'm sure Ime getting it wrong, simply rambling on untill the desired word is reached,.... there seems little poetry in its formlessness

Blimey! Sestina eh? Bit of a bugger? I've never got further than a triolet and a sonnet is complicate enough for me.

You've no doubt seen this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestina

There's nothing there says it has to have a specific metre and it mentions any amount of variations that can be used.

39 lines! That's about three times longer than the longest poem I've ever written.

:-)

Have fun.

Ohh I had a go at one the other week, it's still there lying forlorn in my notebook...structure? Bah Humbug...who needs it?

I tend to think SS said it all about sestinas:

http://www.writeoutloud.net/public/blogentry.php?blogentryid=8188

Thanks everyone for the thoughts... I eventually found my copy of Steven Fry's an Ode less traveled and found the info is as The Sybil spake.

I know it's deadly unfashionable to comply with form and I don't always do it myself, but I think it sometimes adds spice to an artistic endeavour. At college I had a formidable performance teacher, very avaunt guard, but whenever she set us a task to create something she placed seemingly random and tortuous restrictions on us... "you can only use lines from the poetry of will self"... "break down each movement you wish to do into it's component parts and learn it like a set of robotic instructions" ... "Perform a piece of music from a non English speaking nation in the piece".

Most people thought she was being needlessly provocative but one day a frustrated student challenged her when she had thrown yet another eleventh hour restriction that had thrown all his careful plans awry... "why can't you just let us do what we want?" he said. The teacher gave as good as she got (she was French and as Fiery as anything),
"if I let you just do anything it will be just adolescent piss! Random! You think I should let you piss all over my stage? Is that what you want? Or do you want to learn how to make art? I give you the restrictions to make you work harder... Hunt for every word! Justify every movement! Craft your art! Do not piss it out! Nothing is art that is just spewed out and not crafted! Learn to craft!"

Now no doubt that the teacher was a bit of a control Greek but once you learned her lessons she warmed wonderfully and was one of the most encouraging teachers I had.

This is a very roundabout way of defending those of us who dabble with form... If you have to conform to rules of meter rhyme or the such like you have to work to get your meaning out... And i would argue that this makes you concentrate on it much more than if there are no limits to what you can do.

Having said that... I ain't finished that blasted sestina yet!

Control Greek! Lol... Damn iPhone auto correct!

I think your teacher was totally correct.Try some form, some rules.

This 'the only rule is that there are no rules' bollocks has fucked poetry on here a hundred times. THERE ARE RULES!

It's got to be good.

There is far too much random adolescent piss about.

She is a wise and thoughtful teacher.

:-)

Jx

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/sestinas/

If you haven't already had enough sestinas - somewhere there's a collaborative sestina I did with John Calvert on here.

Keep at it. I wrote one (yeah - one; I'm not exactly an expert) recently and found it very rewarding. It took me five-and-a-half hours over two evenings.

Good Luck.

At a local poetry group this week, one of the participants offered a superb sestina; an older gentleman he was. Within this strictest form done in six-line stanzas, his total ease with words and ideas was astounding. The poem read so meaningfully, and effortlessly, that the tortured structure slipped by nearly unnoticed. This work is a treasure. I am 100% with that teacher who flogs discipline as a prerequisite to all 'art'- like the nine-tenths of the iceberg underwater to support the visible peak. I am going to try a sestina myself - oh, horrors! but I'm going to try! My mind is a poetic blank at this moment, so I plan to start with a 'form' template. I do know that it is amazing what a little structured thinking will evolve.

why don't you lot just gather around a cauldron and throw in some bits of frog...

Or bits of you, Tommy Carrol - a heaving frothy mixture spitting out biting vocabulary - with attitude. Is that to say a sestina is not possible without magic? Or that we are a bunch of warlocks and witches? Or that trying to write such a 'classic' form puts us in the age of literary dinosaurs, long gone and not worth brain power, to write or even to read?

"This 'the only rule is that there are no rules' bollocks has fucked poetry on here a hundred times. THERE ARE RULES!"

There are guidelines, sure. But rules are for anal retentives and the kind of people who think the only music is Mozart, the only art is Constable and the only poetry 'rhymes and makes sense.' People who haven't yet managed to escape the 19th century, that is.

@ Tommy well,apart from the bits of frog , i do that regularly, whats it got to do with sestinas ?

wow... that has provoked a heated debate... a little less name calling nd invective would be nice I think ;-) I write both formed and free poetry and think there are merits in both... I am a musician as well as a writer and even though the music I write is fairly entrenched in one form, when I was learning my instruments i studied and played musical forms form all eras... the fact that I know what sonata form is and understand its structure aboslutely does make me a better writer of glitzy showtunes thank you very much.

It's very easy to pooh pooh knowledge and the 'establishment' but lets not forget that Mozart was as radical in his day as some of our contemporary artists, not just because of his life style... but that was riotus too... but because of his development of the forms that had come before. Constable similar for his use of light.

The Artist of the Modern Period were as well versed in forms as thier predecessors. T.S. Eliot knew his way round an iamb well before he seemingly ditched them. Shoneburgs (pretty un-listenable to imho) musical works still adhear to classical forms that Vivaldi used.

I think what I am rambling on about is that you have to know the forms to work outside of them. That may seem harsh but once you have buggered about trying to get an iambic line right you start to feel the rhythm of words in a much fuller way.

No doubt there are some people who can just do it, write beutiful formless poetry right of the bat in the same way that there are some people who can play the electric guitar wonderfully without ever having learned to read a note or play anything other than the style they wish... but i think these people are few and far between (I certainly am not one of them in any field I work in) and good luck to them.

Some might think I am being snobbish or elitist in this attatude but I think rather it is those who say that anything with a rhyme is crap who are the new intilectual snobs.

(Sound of two 'pennorth being dropped squarely in the middle of the table I think!)

I completely agree with what you are saying, both Cynthia and Ian... When I find the motivation and inspiration, I shall attempt a Sestina - until then it is just a thought, an ambition : )

"There are guidelines, sure. But rules are for anal retentives and the kind of people who think the only music is Mozart, the only art is Constable and the only poetry 'rhymes and makes sense.' People who haven't yet managed to escape the 19th century, that is."

A masterful piece of generalised twaddle there Steve, masterful.

Oh, and can you explain to me how, if a poem doesn't make any sense it is, in any sense a poem? Poetry is about the senses n'est ce pas?

At last! Waling v Aikman. This is the big one, the match we were waiting for ...

Ah Greg - you've no idea ... wait 'til we get Waling v Malpoet maybe - or any of the heavies weighing in - DG, Siren, Blackburn, Davies, Jordon ... now THOSE were argu ... er ... debates to behold and wonder at!
;)
Cx

All this wailing makes me ache, man!
(All, right, I KNOW it is pronounced Walling - poetic licentiousness.)
There's nothing wrong with difference of opinion about things, but can we please, as poets or wannabe ones, pick our words to each other a bit more judiciously; try to be less flamboyant in our critique of others?
To suggest some kind of link between anal rentention (and that that is a type) and enjoying using "rules" is perhaps not conducive to community harmony; or am I just being too sensitive?
Thank you. After all, there are rules governing use of the site, but we would prefer they were treated as guidelines so that we don't need to invoke them. If you get my drift.

Chris, you are so right. Not like the old days, eh? In fact, the first time Dave Morgan and I went to the Dead Good Poets' Society in Liverpool there was a poetic punch-up, with poets squaring up to each other, and one guy calling another an existentialist tosser. Wonderful. Only Liverpool.

Thank you Julian.. this 'wannabe' hopes everyone will play a bit nicer from now on please (at least on this thread...) perhaps we could just call everyone poets or people from now on tho huh? Despite our own personal opinions of their works merits ;-D .

so that said...

It is important to be able to discuss this stuff without concieving dissagreement as a personal attack otherwise we will never get anywhere at all.

on the sestina front... Hayles is still no further forward!

oh and by the way... I'm fairly sure that even nowadays people still get angry enough about poetry to visit physical violence on one another.. just goes to show... some things never change ;-D

One may follow whatever self-imposed rules one wishes to with regard to the writing of poetry, everything from the rules of Anglo-Saxon alltiterative verse to the escapologist-escaping-from-a-chained-up-box rules of Oulipo.

It's when someone comes along with the suggestion that these rules are somehow compulsory, or the "it's not poetry unless it..." brigade that I have an objection to.

It's not poetry unless it is poetic and a poem is never poetic unless it captures some essence of poetry and the essence of poetry requires a degree of discipline that is not, ever, found without some attention to the rules of poetry.

It's people who think that everyone is entitled to chuck any old crap down and claim it as poetry that piss me off.

The, 'everything is poetry even if it's self evidently craftless, pointless and senseless drivel...brigade' that I have an objection to. 'Bad poetry' is an oxymoron. If it's bad, it ain't poetry.

:-)

jx

Well that's all a matter of opinion John. One man's meat is another man's poison and all that... I dread to think how many times I've said this on these threads.

I think we are all on a learning curve and some people appear to be stuck on the bottom of it. Their perception may be the opposite though - supported often by the perception and comments of their friends.

I think that writing to formal structure is incredibly hard. I think it is useful as an exercise - one I keep promising to do, just to test and challenge myself. Too often I seem poems though where the flow and feel has been compromised for a strict syllabic structure - ruining the poem for me.
The other side to the coin is 'free verse' that doesn't flow either and where you have that 'anything goes' kind of feel. On the whole I prefer to read poetry than chopped up prose - apart from one or two exceptions where the ideas are compelling.

I suppose we have to bear in mind that this is an amateur poetry site. Whether free verse or formal verse, so long as we are trying our hardest, who is to say what is right and what is wrong?

Can't believe I've actually felt motivated to leave a comment on a discussion thread. The site seems to be losing its fizz and bang of late.

Sorry Izz, but it's not all 'just a matter of opinion', it really isn't.

The 'eat shit, ten billion flies can't be wrong' school of thought inevitably leads us up the path of solipsistic agrandisement.

I like it, therefore it must be good.

Steve likes it therefore I must accept it is good.

Nope. It has to be good before it can be good, and 'good' is not just any old shite banged together and pumped out there without a single thought given to how it might ineffably express something, whatever it is, in a way that might never have been done before. It can be a magnificent failure...and still be poetry, but it can't ignore all the rules of aesthetics, make no sense, and be crap...and still be 'poetry'

In my most humble opinion.

Stop being an apologist for bollocks!

(You know I love you)

:-)

Jx

Sorry John, it surely is a matter of opinion. The only thing that makes the 'acknowledged greats' great is that lots of people share that opinion of them.

Good in poetic terms is only ever based on opinions. In fact good in most fields is all about opinions.

So whilst you are fully entitled to your opinion about the whole issue others are also entitled to hold different and even opposite views. The fact that they are opposite no more makes them wrong than makes them right.

Also surely words like "shit", "shite", "crap" and "bollocks" don't add any weight or coherence to an argument and clearly unless it is very subject-specific poetry would very rarely be accurately described as "shit" or "shite".

I would love to see people share and debate their opinions whilst accepting that just because someone thinks differently they are not therefore wrong.

Difficult I know, but I still hope.

John - I love you too, sweet pea xx

Rant to your heart's content, if it makes you feel better. A good rant often helps me. Twould be even better if you put your rant to poetry (structured or otherwise) and came up here to perform it!

An Aikman rant - now that would be something worth listening to...

I'm sure the intensity of your argument has something to do with boredom, though - something I'm suffering from at the moment.

How stupid can poets be?

Jeez, Seamus, reality isn't, nor can ever be, merely a 'matter of opinion'. Shit, shite, crap and bollocks are all lovely words...fabulously poetic words, descriptive, euphonious, apposite, earthy, living, literate and lovely words. Poets love words, they add weight and space and coherence and...oh, all the things you think they don't...even to shite poems.

You are right, Izz, I am bored, I am utterly bored with folks that justify 'reality' as being just an 'opinion'.

Poetry transcends opinion. It should aspire to the ineffable and, if it fails, it should fail magnificently...

'Difference is an opportunity'.

I like that idea.

Jxxx

Phew John! That was worth stopping by to marvel at!

Maybe that's what unstructured poetry lacks - PASSION! The cruel necessity of suffering for one's art, the discipline, the sacrifice, the spiritual martyrdom, the draining of the soul.

I have also learned, in the course of this debate that

""shit", "shite", "crap" and "bollocks" don't add any weight"

You try carrying a rucksack full all day!

All I know, is that some poetry is sometimes shite, and some shite is sometimes po. e . t . No , I'm sorry, it isn't. Ever.

Keep the faith brother.

Regards,
A.E.

Still on hols with this awful internet access but managed to read this fascinating exchange and even log in. I'm with Seamus and Izz. It is possible to identify technical failures in structured poems. But beyond that it is all opinion. I once read a friend's Master's thesis on just this point and reluctantly had to agree with him much as I like the idea of objective standards. I also have to agree with others about the language. Throw words like shite around and an atmosphere is created. Less respectful. Less friendly. Harder for beginners to relax in. There are places for people who like their criticism ruthless, including a corner of WOL itself. But not WOL's main street please.

Are we then left, with the awful conclusion that everything anyone writes is poetry - simply because they claim it is? Every shopping list of fourteen items is a sonnet? That every opinion is as valuable and valid as any other? That those who have never attempted writing poetry (or even feigned an interest) can create a "poem" at the first attempt - simply because they proclaim it as poetry? That any piece of writing suddenly becomes poetry when the author makes their mind up that they wish it to be seen as poetry?

I have always applauded work that strives to be different, challenging - breaks the rules in fact. But, I fail to see how I could ever accept that the wide range of styles and disciplines that fall under the broad arch of poetry has no rules or standards.

If this is the bar that poets are setting for theirselves - that anything can be poetry - then that bar doesn't exist. Does a five minute amble to the corner shop make me an athlete, or that amble an athletic event?

What do we want from poetry? Probably not an elitist cadre of writers who set the "rules" and admission fees for being a "poet." But also probably not a state of affairs where all writing has to be considered poetry.

If we lower the standard to that level - then, frankly what's the point of ever trying to write something with effort or craft - or rules for that matter?

What effect does this "no rules" approach do for poetry - something we have all said from time to time that we feel passionate about? Is it likely that poetry will improve, or connect more fully with its potential readership because of the no rules approach where all is deemeed poetry on the whim of the author?

I'm heartened by the interest in poetry as evidenced by the steady flow of new joiners to WOL almost every day. But are we doing those new recruits any favours by saying that "you can write what you like and call it a poem - there are no rules"? Will that improve their writing, and, if there are no rules or standards, how are they, or we for that matter, ever able to say with any conviction that they have improved?

Whether we like it or not there are standards, rules, tastes, preferences and, for every one of us; good and poor and yes, even non-poetry.

And if I'm wrong - and I may well be - what is the point?

Regards,
A.E.

Quote
It's not poetry unless it is poetic
Unquote

You would need an objective criteria or 'objective definition' for your use of the word 'poetic'; otherwise the word poetic is either meaningless or subjective/based upon your opinion.

The latter is something you appear to be against- opinion not being something that you think should define what is or is not poetry.

Quote
and a poem is never poetic unless it captures some essence of poetry.
Unquote

A poem is never poetic is a contradiction in terms. Like I said you need to objectively define 'poetic' in order for anyone to know what you are saying. Otherwise your position is very blurry/ambiguous.

Quote
the essence of poetry requires a degree of discipline that is not, ever, found without some attention to the rules of poetry.
Unquote

You would need to detail/define 'the rules of poetry' in order for us to test your statement/claim. You could be right, or you could be wrong, but claims need to be evidenced in order to be accepted. As it stands, without such a definition/criteria the above statement is untestable. I am not pro or against what you are saying- either way.

Quote
It's people who think that everyone is entitled to chuck any old crap down and claim it as poetry that piss me off.

The, 'everything is poetry even if it's self evidently craftless, pointless and senseless drivel...brigade' that I have an objection to.
Unquote

I can relate to that, though defining what is crap, particularly objectively is another thing altogether. I think doing such things can be extremely difficult if not impossible.

Quote
'Bad poetry' is an oxymoron. If it's bad, it ain't poetry.
Unquote

No your comment is a contradiction in terms. If bad poetry cannot be poetry, then you only have reasonable or good poetry left and by definition the least of this would be regarded as bad in relative terms. Railing against bad poetry; I get that (so long as it does not get personal and become ad hominem). Trying to attain or maintain standards in poetry, particularly via self discipline; again I get that, though there is an inherent danger in terms of who judges what
(if you don't have objective criteria).

Anyway I get the argument above...

But to say there is no such thing as bad poetry, like anything, like bad painting or bad architecture etc is not only false; it is a statistically impossibility where anything is considered on merit and judged comparatively by any set of standards. At the moment this entire debate is far too wooly and becomes and boils down to one opinion against that of another.

All that we see is linguistics, some semantics and subjective opinions/adversarial statements. If you want an objective criteria/definition versus subjective opinions argument over poetry you first need to define the objective criteria/definition including any supporting criteria such as 'rules of poetry'.

I can’t believe we are actually arguing about this.

When the Tate gallery bought a pile of bricks back in the 70’s, I could never agree that such an arrangement was what I called ‘art’. Lots of eminent art critics would disagree though.
If someone had added to those bricks and turned them into a pretty house, large enough to house my brood comfortably, I might have seen their point of view. Ray Millar might have agreed, had those bricks been painted claret and blue. His wife might have agreed, had they been painted pink.

Clearly there is good and bad art, good and bad poetry. Art, by its very nature, has to be subjective. What more is there to say?

For what it is worth I am on neither side of this debate;

I have just applied a little scientific reasoning, that if applied would afford some clarify to the respective positions.

Currently the argument is that of opinions and not objective reality versus opinion.

I'm not having a go at anyone Chris. I have a lot of respect for everyone involved - and their opinions - which they are quite entitled to hold.

Perhaps I should have used the word 'discussing', rather than arguing. I was just trying to lighten things up a little, whilst making a point, as is my way.

The debate has been;

subjective versus objective.

or to put it another way;

opinion versus objective
standards/criteria.

The problem is; the objective standards or criteria have not been set out.

So the debate has become nothing more than a debate of one mans subjective opinion versus another.

Either the objective standard/criteria is set out or there is no real debate.

Not taking sides as such...

John,

I have no doubt that you firmly believe everything you wrote, including the comment about stupidity in your response to me. However I was referring to the post in which you began; "It's not poetry unless it is poetic and a poem is never poetic unless it captures some essence of poetry" and your refutation of Isobel's statement that it is a matter of opinion.

I think Chris made the point very clearly that there is a debate about subjective versus objective.

Unless there is something against which to make an objective measurement then the measurements and judgments made must be subjective, and those are opinions. They may be correct opinions, they may be majority opinions but they are definitely opinions.

My point about the language used was that in the context of a debate about what is or is not poetry the use of those words I refer to did not add weight. Reasoned argument does.

All words are "apposite" only when used in an appropriate context. "Jeez" and "stupid" also fail to add strength to your points.

A shame really because you do have some strong and valid opinions and I absolutely respect your right to hold and believe in them.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah.

Part of 'my problem' is that it is just such a weak and insubstantial argument to posit that reality (whatever that means) is just a 'matter of opinion'. One's subjective experience of reality might well be described in terms of 'opinion'...that doesn't make it real, just a description of one's experience of 'real'.

The fact that Chris cannot detect the irony, or indeed the humour, behind the claim that 'bad poetry is an oxymoron' is a cause of some sadness to me. As always the argument descends into the usual 'it's all just opinion, no, it really is..honest guv', it is... I can't tell you why, but it is..on my life, I swear it is, bet you can't prove it isn't', solipsism.

The polarised dichotomy of 'subjective vs objective' is so, so tired. Poetry is all about resolving that...not exemplifying it. Poetry is about expressing the ineffable, not regurgitating the gurgitated.

I apologise if I implied you were stupid. The word 'Jeez' can stand unapologetically as a very mild expletive. Only an idiot could object to it!

:-)

Jx

PS Only joking.

Quote
The polarised dichotomy of 'subjective vs objective' is so, so tired.
Unquote

A dichotomy is inherently adversarial in this context by definition as it relates to the splitting of a subject into two separate non overlapping parts. By adding the word polarised in this context you just afford us a tautology.

It is a dichotomy that much is true, but it is NOT any less relevant for that fact; many great debates are of such a nature.

It is 'precisely' the inherent nature of the very debate that you put to the fore. If it was a tired debate from your point of view, you should not have bothered raising it!

If you drink too much alcohol, you can't realistically complain about being drunk can you!

In any respect I suspect that your comments are far more related to the fact that you do not wish to attempt to clarify your position. The reasoning being that you would find it difficult and time consuming. Plus you don't want the difficulty in dealing with any logical fallout that may arise.

Much easier to raise a debate in a grand manner and then run for the hills when the devil of detail is called for LOL.

let's face it John; logic is not your strongpoint, seemingly it is undetectable flat-forum irony
;) ;) ;) LOL

Note the above is a joke :)

You seem to make lots of them in hum-har pointed ways towards myself so I presume you can take this ity bity one yourself (rhetorical).

P.S

When you demand that objective is the order of the day when evaluating poetry, clearly you have to clarify and substantiate what objective is in this context. Otherwise you just end up shouting that you are right, and that you know what is best over the opinion of the next man; who simply admits that his opinion is simply subjective.

Oh and none of this is to say that objective is wrong or the wrong side of the debate. There you go, that is a little bit of the grey of life that you seem to like so much when it suits you ;)

Maybe mix it with some of the absolutes you paradoxically enjoy so much within the same debate- funny yet true.

I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts on the sestina as a poetic form.

No, I would, I really would.

:-)

Jx

(and your advice for us less accomplished poets and logicians...that would be good too)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

I agree with Chris - if I understand him right. Unless you have an objective set of criteria for what a poem is, then you can't say that your opinion is any better than anyone else's.

It's the same with art, and even with music: the edges are blurred as soon as you introduce such things as 'musique concrete', conceptual art, visual and sound poetry, prose poetry, the experimental in general.

As someone whose tastes and practise runs to the experimental, I'm afraid I can't see any actual hard and fast rules. There are many useful guidelines for writing, and things like the rules of grammar, to help people who want to write better. There are the rules of formal poetry, which can be learnt and applied and use either badly or well, if that's your bag.

You don't have to like everything that calls itself poetry out there. I don't like everything that calls itself poetry either; though I probably have a different set of poetry that I like than other people.

But art is not strictly definable; that's almost its point. Art is an Easter Island statue and a Greek vase, a pile of bricks and a landscape of Tuscany. You don't have to like everything.

Oh and one other thing - I do think it's a very good thing to be know what the rules of formal poetry are, and maybe even to practice them, so that when and if you want to 'break the rules' you are doing so from a point of knowledge rather than from a point of ignorance.

Though I don't think you need a really intense knowledge of every single rule of every single verse form, unless it's something that really interests you. A good basic knowledge is a good thing though.

I think we are on the same page Steven.

I am saying that somebody should not say poetry in not poetry or crap based on reality and then say 'whatever reality is' LOL. Somebody shouldn't say that poetry is not poetry or crap because of the objective reality and not define what this objectivity 'IS'. Otherwise it is simply opinion versus opinion or some other 'unnamed vagary' they wish to place on the moral high ground.

In order to affirm the claim that an objective evaluation of poetry is superior to that of subjective evaluation/opinion; the person making such a claim MUST detail what that objective evaluation is!

They must define it! They MUST set out its criteria!

Otherwise I might as well say that Blancmange is the only way to evaluate poetry. I might as well say that tea reading is the only way to assess poetry LOL

We know what one side of the debate is; that of evaluating poetry via subjective opinion. We only ask that the other side of the debate is also 'defined', so that we actually know what is being said/claimed/argued ROFL.

Otherwise;

A) those on one side of the debate (the subjective opinion side) find themselves akin to being the defence council in a trial; where the prosecution does not have to divulge what their case is LOL.

B) Oddball emperor's new clothes would-be elitists could claim to be the arbiter of all in the name of objectivity.

P.S

John I don't really have much of an interest in the Sestina debate. Twelfth-century mathematical algorithms don't do it for me, the same way Anglo-saxon accentual verse holds little interest. My interest was in the debate that you yourself started half way through this thread; the one we have been having LOL.

For what it is worth I have written to meter/to form dozens of times; iambic trimeter, iambic tetrameter, iambic pentameter (with and without feminine endings); in blank verse and with differing rhyming schemes… the sonnet, villanelle, Haiku, Ghazal, Sestina, Rondeau etc etc etc. I have tended to split my poetry equally between the structured and non structured....hence me not being on any side of this debate.

You would appear with your haul of what is it now ten poems? to be in need of opinion/some help lol j/k.

Either that or your undetectable irony is at work again Hehe.

Have a nice time with your Sestina :)

I usually make it my business not to get involved in these arguments, apart from shouting "Fight! Fight!" occasionally. But it does seem a shame that this thread has predictably degenerated into name-calling - or even bemoaning how things ain't wot they used to be on WOL - when it began as an innocent discussion about the sestina. What has the sestina ever done to deserve this? It seems to me that this argument is not about the nature of poetry at all, but politics. It's between conservatives and liberals. Or, as Steven Waling said on another thread about Carol Ann Duffy, mods and rockers. Go and sort it out on Brighton seafront.

Poetry is like Religion, completely unsolvable by argument. And this has been true since 'verse' began. In western tradition we have Aristotelian and Platonic definitions at complete loggerheads. I think all the opinions here fall into either of these two major categories, the objective or subjective purpose of poetry: 'It is not what a poem is, it is what a poem does' controversy. This discussion sometimes leans into boring as gilt-edged terms are tossed about, making little headway in clarity.

Sestina? Hmm, don't talk to me about Sestinas. My brother was killed in a quarrel about sestinas!
Perhaps we should open a Write Out Loud night in the lovely village of Loggerheads, but which one?
We could theme the first night with "guilt-edged"; or not.

Loggerheads is a small village in north Staffordshire, England, on the A53 between Market Drayton and Newcastle-under-Lyme. I should know, I was there last sunday (True). Win

While on the A494 between Mold and Ruthin in North Wales may be found Loggerheads Country Park - favourite day-out destination from Liverpool. The pub there is the 'We Three Loggerheads'

The origin of the unusual name is believed to be a dispute between a local vicar and landowner in the mid-eighteenth century. The landlord of the inn invited the two parties to the inn in an attempt to broker an agreement. This is said to have led to the common usage of to be 'at Loggerheads' to mean a disagreement.

Interesting, Cynthia - I concur with most of what you said. To me, a set of rules implies there is some such thing as a 'perfect poem' out there we're all trying to aproximate as close as possible too. A very Platonic idea - and I'm much more on the side of a Whiteheadean idea of everything being in process: ("What does not change/ is the will to change" [Charles Olson: The Kingfishers])

I'm a bit concerned this debate's cooling off.