Does it really matter if you use rhyme a lot?
The reason I ask is because there seems to be a bit of snobbery around the shows and slams, like it's not as pure or worth of a cheer.
Surely the most important aspects are that it reads well and is as honest as posssible?

What say you?

1) Poetry has to have some kind of shape, otherwise it might as well be prose.
2) Poetry is about language. To quote Amiri Baraka, it's about How U Sound, not what you say. Rhyme, rthymn, syntax, choice of this word over that all affect what a poem sounds like.
3) Honesty is irrelevant. You can lie through your teeth and still write great poetry. If you want to confess, go see a priest.

I have this on-going thing with quotable authorities. At times (mostly) it seems ANY little thing a person says is usable by someone, somewhere, somewhen - as long as it's written down somehewre (probably somewhere obscure).

I do this all the time: so-and-so says... so what, no doubt someone else says the contrary. 'A name' does not equal wisdom; loads of 'big name' writers have written loads of tripe, but authoritatively.

Where do we go to back up a point? What makes one source more reliable than another? Precious little, it would seem.
Just because a quoted opinion seems apposite to our argument does not make our argument any more valuable, nor the quoted source anymore reliable.

I don't know where I am going here, I'm just following this bee in my bonnet, and predictably it's going round and round!

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

If you prefer style over content, Steven, you are most welcome to your poetic preferences.

Poetry, prose... whatever. It is merely a method of communicating. Honesty is paramount.

I'm not interested in absolute concepts such as honesty, integrity and truth as they are intrinsically relative and therefore redundant.

I'm not saying this to be controversial but because it is something I believe.

Wait a minute, this is an absolute truth therefore I'm contradicting myself.

Bollocks! In one sentence I've managed to prove my point - I think

Yours confused

The only thing you have proved is how your "free" thinking limits you.

Relative truth is a flawed concept. Truth is either what it is (black and white/absolute), or it's quite reasonable for a kiddie-fiddler to conduct his business without being hassled by people who's "truth" doesn't match his.

Sorry, you couldn' be more wrong.

You are not talking about "Truth" but belief.

Every fundamentalist thinks they know the "Truth" but it is truth based on belief, interpretation and context which in turn must be relative - hence the joke in my last posting.

BTW Paedophilia was not only rife but legal in ancient Greece.

I believe in absolute truth. Which means that even if others didn't share my belief, it would still be true. As it would be if I didn't believe it.

Relative truth is a matter of the observer’s perception or viewpoint. Relative truth is related on how the person thinks. Therefore, it is about language, culture, upbringing, fear, security, and environment. Thinking is nothing but a material process. And thought can never get closer to absolute truth. If one observes his/her own thought, it is very obvious that it is an image-making mechanism. It is only in a complete understanding of one’s thought process that the gate to the unknown or absolute truth opens. And it does so in the silent space of the brain and the mind.

Absolute truth is a universal truth and it is impossible to perceive it via human language or point of view. The truth of Jesus and others, who like him sprang in various parts of the world, is supremely alike and unifying. Of course, all these sages did mingle with the existing tradition of their time for that was/is the only way to pass on fresh and timeless energy.

Had Jesus lived in India during his time, he would indeed not have been crucified for the simple reason that all Hindus know that they are all gods in the sky and so what a big deal it is if a man claims to be a son of God. But then, century after century, the absolute truth which Christ brought to the people around him turned through time into a political dogma to manipulate the unprivileged rather than bring them out of illusion, his original intention.

Anyway... your point of sexual relations with children being looked at as ok in greek times only goes to serve my point. It is important to stamp absolute truth as a marker, for who knows what may become acceptable? That is why truth is above any medium of delivery.

"I believe in absolute truth" is an oxymoron!

Isn’t truth conceptual, like knowing black is black and white is white.
Can we argue black is black, much like 2+2=4?

Here is a poem:

A quick poem I bashed out tonight about rhyme

By N.P aka Keith or Heith

Is there enough currants in your buns?
Or salad in your pitta?
Is there noise in your cars?
Like the drop d of josh ritta
Is this sweeping sense of rhyme?
Just a means to get across
A point of view
Or maybe two
Points to jack and toss!
A verbal fusing of mind to tongue
And paper pen or keyboard strum
Like a guitar or bra
And fumble in the dark,
Poems! Steeped in melodic liasing-
Oscar, Byron, Joyce and Poe
Did rhyme pretty amazing!

Is black blalck or white whit or are there .......

Shades Between

Not everything is black and white
Colours change as dark meets light
Shades change as we journey to the night

The tapestry of life with complicated weave
Tests our skills in attempts to deceive
Colouring our past our future; what to believe

Shadows dance change perspective
Thoughts once plain become reflective
Chance of success is subjective

Blobs of blue, white, red and green
All the shades that lie between
Refresh our palette start from clean

© Phil Golding 25th july 2007

If you want to hurt your brain a bit have a look at first at the theory of relativity which showed that truths such as the speed of time could change in certain circumstances. Then, if you are like me and have had a lie down for a bit, try Quantum physics which demonstrates that the observer can impact upon the phenomenon which is being observed at a microscopic level.

Schrödinger talks about putting a cat in a box with a piece of apparatus that can randomly either kill the cat or not, to the observer looking at the box the cat is alive and dead simultaneously it is only when the observer opens the box that the state of the cat can be determined. However, by opening the box the observer may influence the state of the cat unknowingly.

Schrödinger's cat is an early attempt to describe a quantum theory about how something can exist in two apparent contradictory states (in the case of the cat either alive or dead) but the act of observing can also paradoxically change the state of the object being observed.

So in the microscopic world of quantum physics white isn't necessarily always white and 2+2 does not always equal 4.

My brain hurts

I wake up with a hangover and this is the first thing I see, my hangover is a lot worse now!

So in poetic terms, we can say a cat is a banana?

THE WORLD IS FLAT I TELL YA!

The question; can we argue, has been answered!

"Absolutism" isn't my thing, although argument for moral relative discussion within poetry- say the cat in the box is exciting for giving the writer scope to push boundaries, in poetry 2+2=4? Nah! or Maybe! measured verse with a dum dee dum dee dum is so recognisable, which leads to snobbery against recognisable sounds, it’s like a simple 2+2=4, it makes sense, we think or ‘believe’ we know this to be a truth…

It is not an oxyMORON.

As I stated before... truth is truth, whether I believe it or not. Abiding by the constraints of language, I say I "believe" in absolute truth. In actual fact, all I do is acknowledge that it is there.
Since there is absolute truth, anything else becomes rather less that it could be. This is why I believe that truth and honest expression are the basis/foundation for artistic expression and not the form itself.

I think that is the difference with open expression for yourself and expression to an audience, concerning primary focus of why we do what we do.

"Poetry, prose... whatever. It is merely a method of communicating. Honesty is paramount."

Bollocks. The train timetables are a method of communicating. If you want to communicate, send a letter to the Times or something.

If you want to create art, learn the craft.

There are absolute truths such as 'a right angle in a flat plane is 90 degrees'. 2 +2 = 4 is not necessarily an absolute truth because it depends on the number base that you are using. It is an absolute truth if you specify in advance that you are using number base ten.

Human actions, values and belief systems are not about truth, they concern judgements by other humans and they are not absolute. It is important to use evidence to establish the truth or otherwise of the events which are being judged and that evidence has an objective quality that can have an absolute reference base. It is simply pointless to speculate on whether the sexual behaviour of the ancient Greeks was right or wrong. When there are living participants in an activity (the Nazi holocaust for example) it is possible to judge the participants by our moral and legal values, but when all participants are long dead, we are dealing with historical matters which may be true or false. There is evidence about Greek law and practice, but it is worthless to try to judge behaviour in that society by the norms of twenty first century Britain. It is just as worthless to condemn our own society for gaoling Oscar Wilde for being actively gay.

Using the word 'gay' brings me closer to poetry and what it is. As Wittgenstein told us, words don't have meanings, they have uses. Language is a means of communication that changes constantly and the words used are defined by their usage. Words and language are not absolute. Poetry means different things in different times and it also has different meanings for different people and contexts.

I enjopy performance poetry which is a form of dramatic art. Many of the audience members for performance poets will never see the work written and the poem must rely for its effect on delivery as well as content. I also like to play with words in a way that understanding is dependent on a reader gaining enjoyment from different meanings of similar sounding words and other related language manipulations. A lot of this work would not be any use at all for performance because the intention would be entirely lost without the wrtten form.

Writing and performance styles in poetry evolve with the language and they are also subject to fashions. For a few decades we have had some denigration of rhyming verse. This seems to be based on the presumption that the existence of rhyme indicates that the work is superficial or that linguistic play and strong rhythms might somehow detract from any deep meaning or emotion that might be present in the work. As is probably obvious, I disagree with these judgements. For me, rhythm and rhyme are fun aspects of language and performance that can be combined with the incorporation of very powerful content.

What distinguishes poetry from prose? Just the conveyance of beauty and pleasure as well as the intention to convey information. Poetry has infinite forms and the lack of obvious poetic structure does not stop it from being poetry. For centuries when people have wanted to express the great quality of a piece of written work, they have described it as poetic. So, if you think that the King James Bible is poetry, or that Masonic ritual is poetry, so be it. It is poetry for you.

For me, poetry often rhymes and if the rhyme distracts you from finding anything more in it OK. Write in rhyme or not as it please you. If you find that audiences respond poorly to your rhyming verse, that may be because of their prejudices or it may be because they just didn't like it.

Pussy Banana

Thanks Malcolm - I like the Wittgenstein reference.

I think I have a problem with rhyme, but only when it's obvious, end-stopped, full rhyme at the end of the line, and used as if it's the only thing that makes a poem a poem. Assonance, consonance, alliteration, sight-rhyme, internal rhyme, rhyming scattered about seemingly randomly as in a Paul Muldoon poem can all be used. There's various means of "getting the rhyme wrong" as Rita in Educating Rita might put it, so why not investigate them?

Then there's shape poetry, nonsense poetry, various forms of innovative writing, surrealism, situationism, LANGUAGE poetry, free verse, "talk poetry" improvised on the spot, various forms of performance poetry, black consiousness poetry.

That's what makes poetry interesting. It's not what you do it's the way that you do it. You're right about words not having meanings inherent in them. Words are signs, they point to meanings but they're not the meanings themselves.

If you want to send a message, the MEN are always looking for letters.

Learn the "art"?
I cannot help but feel that term is designed to cover lack of content.
I'm not saying that craft and form aren't important, I'm just saying that everything has its rightful place. In this case, it is behind truth and communication thereof.

I think that "learning the craft" can largely be an excuse for shallow "artisic expression" panto-horsing it as creative genious. Look to Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin... first agianst the wall and shot if I were King. All style, no substance. They may as well be NBA basketball players.

Be careful with how this conversation is going, this is not to get personal.
And as we all know (maybe...)
A sharp tongue is no indication of a keen mind.

Tracey Emin is absolutely chock full of content! It's all about her life! That's perhaps the problem... it's all content and no design.

As to whether content is important:

'Twas brillig, and the slithey tove
Did gyre and gimble through the wabe.
All mimsy were the brorogroves,
And the momeraths outgrabe...


Ah Lewis Carroll, wouldst thou wert with us at this hour!

Nothing wrong with content in poetry, of course. As one of its elements. But a poem that is nothing more than a vehicle for someone's religious/political/batty ideas is a sermon; and sermons are nothing more than yawnfests.

Ok, I'm done now.
I've said all I've wanted to say.

God bless

Hmm! I like obvious rhymes.

Rupert Bear

Let's hear it for white-knuckle ride Carrollian rhyming sermons read by Wittgenstein in a yellow and red checker scarf with Plato translating the content into ideals. Now I grant you all absolution. It's better than an ecstasy of fumbling. Or is it?

All poems have content - they all have things and events being described - and they're all more or less attempting to reveal something of the world around the writer and that writer's pov, even nonsense poems.

As Lewis Carroll also said: "Moral: Behave."

I don't like obvious rhymes, by the way, because they're a bit like rock'n'roll or trad jazz or bad country'n'western.

Going to the original question, I don't really think it matters if you use rhyme or not, some poets do some don't it just depends on your style of writing really.
If you can say something valid and use some cool catchy rhymes to do it then all power to you, but I don't think theres any pressure on wether you use rhyme or not.
Although, if you do use rhyme, the Rhyme Police have eyes everywhere...

Rymes for our Times

Making a rhyme
isn't a crime,
but just poetic endeavour.

A rhyme can be dumb,
and then there are some,
which are so apposite
they are clever.

The fact that it chimes
with the mode of our times,
doesn't count to a poet.
No never.

Profundity comes
to a bard who sums
the whole of her art,
in full and not part,
to the heart of her heart
forever.

Nice poem Malcolm.
xx