Is there a place any more for poetry which has no spelling mistakes, which is grammatically correct, and which rhymes? Or am I just being an elitist geek who is trying to sound intelligent?

Is rhyming synonymous with intelligence? or correct spelling with élitism?
Grammatical rules and acceptable spellings are good to know, they can inform the choices you make - but if you can get the effect you want for your poetry better by breaking the rules ... then so what?
Language is organic, a living thing that is constantly evolving; if Shakespeare couldn't find the word he wanted - he made it up.
Say what you want to say - in the way you want to say it ... just like Will did.
Cx

There is a view that poetry should be as good as prose and then better. I am slipshod sometimes with sentences, and I don't mean to be. Poetry can experiment by playing with the rules, but it's not clever to act as if you don't know 'the rules' of sentences. We all know them, (even if we don't remember the Latin Grammar names for them). If you ignore them, you risk not communicating what you are saying. Then again some 'experimental' poetry may be about the meaning in words clashing against each other without the structure of a sentence to pull them into line. Nowt wrong with that as an experiment. Is there?

I would say that there is definitely a place for poetry like that Bill - right alongside poetry riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.
You are right to draw attention to the importance of the written words in poetry though. Mistakes and errors are an eyesore and a distraction. Poets should make an effort to tidy work up before posting. Some may not have the eye for it though - should that make their work unacceptable? There are some lousy spellers on here who also write great poetry and the converse of course.
Re rhyming - it does seem a bit out of fashion which I find hard cos sometimes I can't not rhyme. Rhyming does restrict your language a hell of a lot though. There are only so many words that rhyme with key words like love, die etc. After you've written a few rhyming poems, you find that you have hammered them rather a lot.

Bill - To answer your original question... YES and NO :-)

Carelessness puts people off, and creates unnecessary barriers to appreciating the merits that may lurk in a poem, or any piece of writing. Well crafted work gains respect and attention, even when the reader isn't excited by the content or style. For me. a poet such as Pope is of that sort - it's obvious why he is in the pantheon, even though I don't really connect with his stuff and wish I'd been given a book by almost any other 'name' poet.

"Re rhyming - it does seem a bit out of fashion which I find hard cos sometimes I can't not rhyme."

Isobel - you can extend your use of rhyme with off-rhyme, assonance, consonance etc (eg love, give; love, dumb etc: see Wilfred Owen's Strange Meeting.


General point: some very great poets were bad spellers, and mucked about with the sentence: not least John Clare, Thomas Wyatt, e e cummings, etc. Even Shakespeare mucked about with the metre of his poems.

Carelessness is one thing, by the way; improvisation is entirely another thing.

Bill, you are an intelligent, self-deprecating guy who is concerned about sounding elitist. You don’t; you sound concerned.

In answer to your first two questions regarding spelling and grammar: seemingly, there are places, but there should not be. To be precise (or “pedantic” if that is what you consider precision to be, as many now do) spelling and grammar are not optional extras to writing, and certainly not to “good” writing. They are essential to the understanding and appreciation of what you are trying to communicate as a writer. Otherwise, what is their point?

The telling words in that part of your question are, “mistakes” and “correct”. Mistakes and incorrect usage can hamper both the understanding and the enjoyment of your work, and can preclude acceptance in magazines that care about their reputation. Our website is not such a place. Should it be?

Breaking the rules is not the same as not caring about or not knowing about them.

None of the above has anything whatsoever to do with questions of whether and how to rhyme. Different topic entirely, which suggest to me that you are concerned not just about sounding elitist, but about sounding somehow old-fashioned. In my view, the question is not whether or not you use rhyme, but whether you have created the best work you can, rather than simply dashing something off and slapping it on the site as soon as it is “finished”.

As Steven points out, there are lots of opportunities to play with different forms of rhyme. Learn new rhyming schemes, rewrite your piece in a different style and see what it brings to it, take a different person (first to third, so forth).

I believe it was Theodore Roetke who wrote, art is taking the time to do something well. For me, that includes taking the time to learn your craft. Not sure where to place your commas? Find out: buy or borrow a book on punctuation. As a professional writer and editor I still look up words that I use every day, to be absolutely sure of the finished result, whether mine or that of someone I am editing. I don’t use just one dictionary, but check with a range of style guides, where there is the possibility of alternative views, as is the case with some aspects of grammar and punctuation.

A great topic. Well, it fascinates me. Shall we have a section on grammar and punctuation?

Brilliant idea Julian. I once thought about setting up a discussion thread on it - but a section would be better. You could have a section on spelling in it too. I don't think schools are teaching the nuts and bolts of grammar so much nowadays. Creative writing definitely seems to be taking a back seat to persuasive also.

What's all this?
Grammar? Language? Punctuation?
I'm still standing! :-)

Gotta say I do like spelling correctly

Write it right, right! Wrongly written is rotten. Right rotten, really. Regularly writing rotten words without realising that what you've written's rotten really requires regular, repeated reproach. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, that's one of my favourites to spell, Janet: CORRECTLY.
Ignore me, all. I am just on one of those acerbic moods what one gets de temps en temps.

Just a couple of points:

1) There are people with dyslexia out there.

2) Bad spelling doesn't stop you from a good poet as such.

3) It's only really since some time in the 19th century that we've had a standardised spelling system. Usually decided upon by t'Southron middle clarses, mi duck...

4) Spelling and grammar, if you want them to be correct, is something I would leave to the editing stage. The first stage should always be the inspiration stage.

5) Then there's the whole issue of dialect, idiolect, local usage and language change...

Agree with all that, especially editing vs inspiration. In fact it is editing that we are talking about really. Perhaps that is what is wrong, that some folk do not edit or critique their own work, let alone proof it before letting it loose on the world? Inspiration is but a part of the craft. What is that saying about creating good work: 5% inspiration, 95% perspiration?
And I suppose that if G.W.Bush could get to be president of a country he could not find on a map, let alone have a reasonable grasp of his native tongue, who am I to criti... TBC

Que? Julian
Yes to both ;-)

Julian, if i may say so.. you can be a right right winger when you want to be, not to mention eliti..

What about the poor souls like me who have difficulty editing some of their own work. Some of are trying you know and it's sites like this that helps us improve via discussion and ideas ;-)

Oh god, sorry, forgive me but I just have to point out that a couple is two of something, not 5. I'm looking at you, Steven.

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

I bet the conversos wish theirs had been as modest as mine

I have no particular beef about the development of our language as long as the development is in addition to the basic building blocks that cement English as the foremost language of the world.
What does get me exercised are those that haven't learnt to write correctly but whom then invent something that they can write, expecting critical acclaim.
It really isn't good enough to scribble down two or three clever lines that do not really abide with each other and call it poetry.
The medium should expect more.

"I have no particular beef about the development of our language as long as the development is in addition to the basic building blocks that cement English as the foremost language of the world."

Thou hast no more say in the way that language developeth than I hast in the movements of the seas. Like unto the Holy Spirit, it bloweth where it listeth; and tho' it paineth me to say it, the liveliest place that it be growing mayeth well be in ye Newe Worlde.

As for ye Englyshe as ye "foremost tongue in ye world", I suspect that ye speakers of Mandarin Chinese and Spanische mighteth have something to say about that.

Re Mandarin and Spanish speakers: Yeah, but we won't understand what they are banging on about, innit?

Re foremost language etc, depends on your definition of "foremost", ne'est ce pas?

I am in favour of a section on grammar in Poetry, Julian, provided I can have my say on it too.

Oh horror of horros- the Tory vanguard are rattling on about teaching the oldfashioned way and bringing back grammar and spelling. I hate it when they do that. What we need is the new grammar, not that old latin stuff.

Aye lass, random, let's back to good owd fashioned speykin like wot they duz rawnd ere, innit

Nowt wrong wi' that but Christ, all that punctuation for't' missin' letters'll be a pain in't butt wi'nt it?

The widespread UNWILLINGNESS and INABILITY to spell correctly and write grammatically are to be lamented. They are symptoms of a great malaise which combines the coarsening of culture in the West with the systemic failure in education, and a concomitant growth in spectacular stupidity.

Add to this toxic mix, a fall away from faith, a growth in airy-fairy New Age 'spirituality', a rise in ugly cupidity and - surprise, surprise! - so many people dabbling in poetry these days end up embarrassing themselves.

Suggested reading: Orality and Literacy by William J. Ong

Ms Moxy, you have succeeded in getting me to "waste" about twenty minutes or more reading up about Mr Ong. Thank you: Fascinating, apposite, seductive. What a mind! (Yours too.)
His ideas on orality and literacy are apposite for us in the sense that we constantly operate between those two phenomena. Are we about oral poetry that is written on this website purely as an expedient way of sharing it with others, or are we about written poetry that is sometimes shared orally? And what are the implications of each for Bill's questions about spelling and punctuation? Which brings us to questions about Write Out Loud, its role and purpose.
When I talked of having something about grammar, my thought was that it would be a discussion rather than any attempt at prescription (always doomed - Guardian journalists, for example, seem to ignore the paper's own style guide). Are there rules? Who says? What is behind our fears when we get upset about what we see as, what? Dumbing down? Is unwillingness to spell correctly the same as a lack of ability to do so?
Thanks Mock See.

Whether one likes it or not the language has already changed and it takes time for the codification system to digest and try to make new rules that will be ignored in their turn.

Viva the revolution!
Viva Professor Stanley Unwin!
Viva er... Moxy Casimir!

Eh up, steady on...! Stanley Unwin for President!