"Reality, on the other hand, and the shared human experience of the brutality of existence, and the human inability to truly comprehend the environment that surrounds us, can be conveyed in arbitrary language, because the very structure of language and our attempts to understand it are a metaphor for our relationship with the world." says Alec Newman in the Truth or Beauty debate.
I think a poet has an obligation to pay attention to the structure of language so I thought I would launch out on a new discussion.
My contention is that both writing and speaking are two-dimensional because they are linear. Words have to queue up to get in the stream. I dont think our thoughts are linear. Poets have to get to grips with the linearity of language. Marinetti was the first to spread words around the page, use different typefaces etc. to overcome this linearity, and many have followed him, but grammar and punctuation are attempts to overcome linearity too.

Hi Freda

You wrote:
I think a poet has an obligation to pay attention to the structure of language.
Intriguing. Do poets have obligations? Obliged by whom or by what? obligation to themselves? Obliged by the need to be understood?

What does "pay attention to" mean? Use? Get it right? What?

Not sure language is linear (depending on what you understand linear to mean), except in its refined form; i.e. when prepared for presentation. When I am attempting to write scripts it is the lack of linearity of my thoughts and my attempts to turn that into linear form for a script (for others to understand what I am trying to convey). And that is the function of what you called linearity, perhaps? To enable us to share with others our thoughts and ideas.
But writing and speaking linear always are not. My Polish father used to amuse us by the word order he used in translating from Polish: come from where did that - is one I often recall. Is that linear when seen through English eyes.
Great subject.

Marinetti only confused. Grammar and punctuation are attempts to enable the linearity that permits others to share the writer's thoughts and ideas. the lack of appropriate punctuation and grammar in many postings on this site, particularly the poetry, makes the creator's intentions difficult to understand.

Just a view, though.
Nailuj Nodroj

Yes the obligation to be understood if you are going to use up space posting your poems. Thats my opinion.
Punctuation and grammar, or syntax, are the means we use to drag our three dimensional (or is it multi-dimensional) thoughts into a spoken or written line-up.
But not only Marinetti found other ways to challenge linearity. I do like the way he set about it by the way. Many an alternative magazine has followed in his footsteps.
I guess that the modernist writers were also trying to overcome linearity with 'Stream of Consciousness'? And what was Walt Whitman referring to as 'leaves of grass?
Its a modernist project to challenge the representation of reality in conventional ways. That is what Picasso and Braque were doing, with multiple perspectives.
Simply not bothering to use punctuation in a way that informs; that's not very challenging.
Freda

I don't think poets have any obligations at all.

If people make space available for you to use that's good. It is not for others to set rules about how you may use it. If you do publish, you are exposing yourself to the comment of others and that is something you have to accept.

I think that a failure to use punctuation makes things harder to read and I consequently often don't bother. If we want to communicate we should make an effort to do it well.

I can't make a lot of sense of the comments about dimension. A page or a screen is two dimensional. Thoughts and speech don't have dimension. I think dimension is being used as a sort of proxy for richness, but it doesn't work.

It is true that writing is a limited way of communicating the things we feel or think. By choosing poetry that is a limitation we have to accept and it is also why performance poetry gives us the opportunity to increase the extent to which we can communicate our poetry with our voices and bodies.

If that is not enough we have to move on to drama, painting, sculpture or whatever to express ourselves.

I feel I ought to be bothered, indignant even, about poetry that isn't punctuated, but I'm not. As long as the language communicates and illuminates the emotion / mystery / truth / message or whatever of the poem, then that's all right by me. I do prefer to see initial capitals used at the beginning of each line, though.

I think it was George Herbert several centuries ago who described poetry as a way of making pictures with words. This implies a non-linear presentation of language. You don't look at one bit of a picture and work your way around it systematically, the whole thing is very quickly absorbed by the brain through neuro-optical trickery. Poems can do this with language by expressing one idea from several verbal approaches.
Some Romantic poet or other also described a poem as a 'little machine'. I love that latter description. A great poem is like a self-perpetuating autonomous entity. Because poetry rarely says exactly what it means in an explicit way, its interpretation is always largely subjective. It can mean many things to many different people, in many different ages. Poetry shares this quality, along with many others, with music.

Punctuation in poetry should be used where the poet thinks it is appropriate. Like Steve, I generally like to begin lines with capitals, but this is simply cultural absorption - many of my favourite poems are written that way.
Would you punctuate a limerick? The second lines of limericks often end with a grammatical call for a comma or a semi-colon or a full stop but nobody ever puts them there. Is this because limericks are deemed 'not poetry'? Or is it because everyone already knows the rhythm of the limerick so it would be superfluous? I believe if the rhythm of a poem is apparent, punctuation can be left out, but I am never offended by its inclusion. I am, however, offended by obviously improper use of punctuation, or inconsistent use. These habits, which are widely displayed by many modern poets, are simply discordant. But not in a Stravinsky way, just a shit way. If you choose to use language as a medium for self-expression, you should first learn the craft, be familiar with the tools at your disposal. To do otherwise shows a lack of respect for language, laziness or ignorance. The latter quality is entirely excusable when coupled with a willingness to learn. Unfortunately, these days everyone wants a shortcut to superstardom, and many think poetry is the easiest route.

If a poem has a very strong rhythm the need for punctuation is reduced, but if you are doing anything more complex than a limerick it seems to me that it's a good idea to help your reader get into the rhythm by providing appropriate punctuation.

Capitals at line beginnings serve no purpose other than feeling they should be there because they used to be. They are detrimental to the easy identification of the rhythm.

I agree strongly with the point that just because poetry is written in lines doesn't make it linear. The brain does form concepts and images early in reading and often changes them as the reading progresses or in subsequent reading when different depths are identified.

If you don't want to use punctuation, don't use it. I sometimes leave gaps for the reader to put the punctuation in; or I sometimes just let it read stream of consciousness mode without punctuation.

But if you're going to use it, use it properly. No grocers' apostrophes, please.

Wow! Lots of comments here. A big focus on punctuation too.
What I meant by linearity is the fact, indisputable I think, that words follow one another in a sentence. I agree that what happens in your head is that they shape themselves into other patterns, and of course patterning in poetry is one of the methods used to link words, cutting across the sentence structure. It is in speech and writing, the material world, that they are linear.
There are lots of interesting points made. What about the balance between verbal groups and nominal groups in sentences then? I think this is an interesting aspect of prose style. Do you focus more on actions or objects? I suppose it depends what you are writing about, but it's worth looking at I think. There seems to be a lot of list-making in some styles of poetry. No objection to lists, myself, but it can be a bit static. Still, a well placed verb can be all the action needed to lift off?

Who here thinks about these things when actually writing poems? Interesting discussion though it is, I confess that my actual practice is, if it sounds good when it's finished, if it expresses something of the inspiration behind it, if it looks good on the page, if it's sufficiently puzzling to make people read it again...

...then it's okey with me...

True. But it is fun (if that is not too frivolous a word) to discuss the theory behind verse, the poetics of poetry.

I used to write poetry purely instinctively, and I was able to formulate fairly complex rhythms purely from my innate musical sense. But since I learned some of the theory behind poetry, I've found I can achieve a productive middle ground where instinct and information can work hand in glove, as it were. Discussing poetry with other poets (or having downright arguments, which some see as an excuse to fling personal insults - you know who you are) can inform future composition, and this includes subjects such as 'punctuation' or 'the linearity of thought/prose/verse'.

I don't know who I am.

Personally, I think that knowledge of a language structure, English in my particular case, can only help a person who has those foolish aspirations to write quality poetry or poetry, at its very least, that shows an understanding of a language and its syntax, morphology, phonology, semantics and so on.

Learning 'the theory' of a language would surely allow a writer to fill his or her bath of writing creativity to its absolute brim, without risking any of those unnecessary leaks that occur between those cracks in their work, and therefore avoid the embarrassment of being lay naked with a big toe stuck fast inside a cold-water tap, waiting patiently for the Emergency Grammarians to arrive...


Me? I use a shower.

I am less concerned with "rules" of grammar and punctuation, than with their utilty.
I agree that there is no point whatever to punctuation or grammar except to enable others to understand what we want them to understand (if that's what you want).
The problem that concerns me is that so few people understand the role that punctuation plays in allowing others to understand. They don't understand how it affects syntax. For example, the editor of a well-known poetry magazine whom I heard talking about why she rejects submitted poems cited poems not "properly" punctuated. If there is anything radical in any of us, we should bridle at the use of the term "properly". It suggests an external 'rule' - a given. We do it because we "ought' to; we have an obligation, externally referenced. It is a test or a trick that we then fail.
No. We use punctuation because it allows us - when we understand it - to express more clearly what we wish to express.
If we want to mask that meaning, or reduce the clarity, as an effect, then that is fine. But so many poets write stuff that works for them when they read it out loud, but not when they publish it on the website without sufficient punctuation to give the rest of us a clue. In my humble opinion.

I tend not to worry too much about punctuation for performance but much more so, obsessively even, when I'm submitting a piece for publication*. I recognise the truth therefore in Oscar Wilde's quotation when he says "I was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning, and took out a comma. In the afternoon I put it back again."

I'm with Julian therefore in thinking that careful consideration of the presentation of your work and the clues that it gives to the reader are important. For that reason I don't automatically use capital letters at the start of a new line and get annoyed when the poet (or editor!) suddenly starts a


new line in at an odd point. The effect is just jarring and, for me, should only be used if that is your intention.

That said, I'd much rather read poorly punctuated poetry full of passion and meaning than beautifully punctuated Emperor's New Clothes "arse dribble" as Steven Fry describes it.

Editors - if you really want to wind a poet up, me anyway, put spelling mistakes in my poem, mess with my punctuation, decide that I didn't really mean to leave 3 spaces between those lines and, in the case of one recent publication, print my poem in "arty" but illegible handwriting whilst completely missing out 4 of its 32 lines thereby completely knocking it out of rhyme, metre and meaning.

Deep breaths, deep breaths!

* Feel free to spot all the errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar in the above piece as my obsession often exceeds my knowledge! :-)

Hi everyone

I am learning as I go along, taking hints and tips from you guys.
The main thing I do is to get the passion out first onto the paper, if I worry about punctuation at the time It blocks the stream of words, so I let any feelings pour out via the keyboard or pen.

I'll look at the work later and use it as a set of cues to use when performing the piece.

If I wish to share it via the printed word, or the LCD/CRT word then, yes it has to undergo the punctuation exercises.

When you are developing from performance to page poetry its these lessons you have to learn, as Julian says, its necessary in order to convey the poem.

What I dislike (but not saying its wrong) is the 'order' or 'authority' where it becomes arbitrary, you get judged on it. I dislike that.

How come theres no judging system for your level of passion?

without passion or feeling (as Tony says, and I wholeheartedly agree), you aint got nothing without that.

designer poems made to look pretty and punctuated do nothing to captivate the reader

it depends on what school you are in perhaps, dare I say highbrow?
whats highbrow?

I'm not as educated in these things, I just know what I feel and I have a good vocabulary.

I'm wondering if its worth me doing a course to help learn more of the tech skill, once I start to understand what all this punctuation is about, I have to admit it does become exciting and enables you to really present both PASSION and CLARITY, makes the poem really neat.

I think it puts the beginners off sometimes, they lose their passion thru the fear of being shown punctuation mistakes, makes them a little scared of poetry. It should never ever be like that. Poetry belongs to everyone of us, language is for all of us.

Just write it down whatever way it comes out, dont worry for the punctuation at that stage, go back to your work when you are ready, just connect with yourself, learn to express and vent the emotion, feelings, imagery.

I say this because I speak to new poets and quite a few get bewildered by this apparent sense of structure, there is none, its chaotic, sporadic.......people buy into YOU and your genuine feelings not manufactured dribble.

That said, even a passionate piece can be improved of course it can, but later, later, don't let it put you off writing.

Hi everyone,
i would just like to say that i'm following this thread with great interest in the viewpoints from all of you.
Although i, personally don't feel qualified to actually participate in the discussion topic, like Peter, i too am learning because of your knowledge.
As in all things, there are so many contradictions to the supposed ruling. OR is it because there are always exceptions to the rules. Maybe that's where some become confused and give up the ghost with their hands in the air shouting," hey, what's going on"?

ps. should that last question mark be before or after the speech marks? hmm...

Thankyou all for your valuable insights and sharing your knowledge and personal thoughts and opinions. :-)
Janet.x

Punctuation is an 'external' standard but only in the same way language itself is. I only call a tree a 'tree' because other people do. If I suddenly started calling it something else nobody would know what the hell I was talking about. Punctuation merely aids the reader in their connection with the rhythm of a piece. And the really 'exciting' thing about using (or learning to use) punctuation is that there are choices. Many uses of commas can be changed to semi-colons for a longer indicated pause, or even a full stop to chop up the rhythm into chunks of meaning.
If new poets are scared of punctuation it is perfectly natural. Learning to drive is scary but once achieved it gives a real sense of freedom. If people don't want to learn that is up to them, but they should not then be bitter if they have difficulty getting published. Unless they are writing in a Projectivist or stream-of-consciousness style or deliberately leaving punctuation out all together, they should realise that punctuation is part of written language. The people who rail against 'old fashioned rules' are often just the people who didn't listen at school. Your problem, not ours.

Obviously, for performance, none of this matters. We naturally punctuate our speech with spectral commas and invisible semi-colons. Ghostly full stops trip from the mouths of toddlers uttering their requests for ice cream or sweets. Textual punctuation is merely a physical manifestation of these tropes, an attempt to make the words we read sound in our head like the words we hear. For that reason it should be embraced by all who wish to write. Even though there are more choices regarding punctuation in poetry than prose, it helps to know the rules before you break them.

'How come there is no judgement on a level of passion?'

Maybe it's because 'passion' can manifest itself in many different or varied ways. I'm not the most animated person in the world, and I still harbour several passions that I don't openly disclose, but I would quite willingly poke anyone in their nearest available body part should they try to quell any other person's passion - whatever that may be?

I recently held poetry workshops (I know...I know) with a group of 14-15 year olds. What I tried to explain to them was that although some poetry is soaked in certain rules and protocols, at their age the emphasis must surely be on their ability to channel their feelings, emotions etc into creative language and in particular - poetry.

As we mature as writers, we should become aware that there are minimum standards which are considered acceptable by most, but not all, authorities, who can help promote our writing to a wider audience.

Not everyone will be offended or perturbed by a repeated, careless use of language and/or punctuation. It makes perfect sense to me though. If you are serious about writing then at least consider learning as much as you can about it.
Of course, there are many exceptions to the rules. Some of these 'rules' are not even formalised, but are nothing more than prescriptive opinion borne from the ideals of early 19th century 'cochaloorums'*.

Performance poets who treat 'performing' seriously, use everything at their disposal to beef their time in front of an audience. It would be foolish if those who write, don't do the same with what's available to them.





* Great word - not found in the OED but 'Webster's' defines it as 'self-important little man' .

Wow. 19th century 'cochaloorums'! Thanks for that word, Darren. It will appear arbitrarily in my next drunken literary conversation.
These will be the same people who changed the spelling of English English in order to distinguish it from American English. I was shocked to realise a couple of years ago that John Donne and Co. spelled words like 'colour' without the 'u'. Words such as this were only 'frenchified' by the literary elite (cochaloorums?) in the early nineteenth century in order to 'posh-up' the language.
So the Americans actually spell our language better than we do. Next time an American complains about the flavor of British food or or is worried about the vapors given off by certain paint colors.....cut them a little slack. And retain your sense of humor.

Alors là Siren... je suis entièrement d'accord ; )

Ooh, Siren... 'u' are awful...but I like 'u'...

My mam used to say 'my little cockalorum' to us all when we were little, by way of being affectionate; not a clue what it meant.

Language. Transmission. Cultrural filters. Wonderful.

I hope its ok to enter the whole first sentence of a poem by Dylan Thomas that I love. Plenty of passion. Interesting sentence structure too.

"Never until the mankind making
Bird beast and flower
Fathering and all humbling darkness
Tells with silence the last light breaking
And the still hour
Is come of the sea tumbling in harness

And I must enter again the round
Zion of the water bead
And the synagogue of the ear of corn
Shall I let pray the shadow of a sound
Or sow my salt seed
In the least valley of sackcloth to mourn

The majesty and burning of the child's death."

Yes there is a full stop, so punctuation is involved, but my point is that the whole sentence hangs together, building up to the main point.
That's what I personally think of as the need for poets to be aware of the structure of sentences.

What an excellent discourse. Thank you, Freda, for initiating it. I'm sorry I didn't see it before today. There's a lot of discussion material on this site, much of which bears careful reading. I appreciate how patient many participants continue to be, month after month, and perhaps year after year, as new poets join WOL, and then are keen to offer their unoriginal ideas.