If your poem’s rhythm is bad, your poem will be bad.
That’s right, I said it. Poetry without rhythm (or poor examples of it) is like a brain-bound rusty screwdriver: stimulating but never a good idea. After you’ve digested all of that “show don’t tell” imagery bullshit, you need to pay attention to your rhythms.
Don’t just read your poem, say it out loud. A poem that sounds great spoken will look great written. If you aren’t confident in your abilities, work on it. Limiting yourself to syllabic structure is an excellent way to learn. Jot a few lines down, figure out some sort of syllabic structure (seven syllables / five syllables / seven syllables / five syllables / etc. etc.) and stay within that structure. This helps you learn how different words flow, and how to make the words work for you. Free-verse is an exciting concept but sitting down and proceeding to pour your thoughts out onto paper willy-nilly will make your poem suck. Poetry is no excuse to ramble. Punctuation, and to a lesser extent your line breaks, are important vehicles of rhythmic greatness, so pay attention to them.
Remember – as a poet – your words and their rhythms are all you have.













Devious Comments
Comments
Answer: very.
I think certain people can pull off a poem with no rhythm or structure, but I think it's definitely an important part of poetry... Because if it wasn't, then it would be prose...
--
"Dont follow my footsteps (I run into walls)."
--
<youthculture>AAHJ THERESN A FLY ON MY NONUEIET
<youthculture>MONITERN AAAA
Mention METRE!!!!
Why do people never mention metre in regards to rhythm?
It is one of THE most useful tools in engineering a smooth rhythm that there is!
Benedictions.
--
There is no escape from metre; there is only mastery.
- T.S. Eliot 'Reflections on Vers Libre' 1917 [link]
I come from an odd introverted headspace where the last thing I would ever want to do is read my stuff outloud. For me, it's a private, and most importantly, written art. I accept this is not standard procedure, however. I do think that poetry can be more effective if it flows nicely when read. However, I think that poetry's purpose, if it could be said to have one, is to incite the explosion of imagery in the head of the reader. If a poem 'reads' like crap but takes the reader somewhere important, I still think it has fulfilled its higher calling. Sometimes, a metre detracts from this. Can you tell I'm more into Garcie-Lorca than Shakespeare?
--
<youthculture>AAHJ THERESN A FLY ON MY NONUEIET
<youthculture>MONITERN AAAA
??
Previous Page1234Next Page