I used to read a lot of poetry too.
In class, at work, at home, at the coffee shop.
This was usually intertwined with intense journaling. It seemed so fluid and natural to write. I was convinced I was a decent poet, but then again not very many people were "lucky" enough to give them a glance.
Fast forward 15 years.
Here I am, reconnecting with my poetic self in my literature class. I still enjoy poetry but have not tapped into the side of my creativity in so long.
Then and even now I had no idea there was so much more to poetry then self expression or a type of story telling, and in no way am I knocking poetry by saying this. There is so much structure, so much detail.
Poetry has it's very own blue prints.
Each word, line, stanza has a specific role to play. Without these roles the poem would not function. Just like a machine, but maybe a more personal one. Creating the basis of beauty and expression, or maybe mystery and horror.
But not only does poetry have a specific layout of multiple forms, it is also like music.
Poetry has sound, in fact it is made up of just that, sound.
When I sat down to try my hand at deciphering the sounds of poetry I realized
"wow, I have no idea what I am doing"
How do we determine the sound of poetry?
Poetry is made up of something called meters. It is how poetry is measured. There are many different kinds of meter, and within these meters are feet.
"Most traditional poetry in English uses the accentual-syllabic form of meter" (pg 592)
This type of meter is based on not only a set of syllables within each line but also a pattern of accents. Now the statement above says that most poetry uses the accentual-syllabic style, but it is most certainly not all poetry. Lots of poems don't follow a regular or strict pattern.
Once learning more about this I began rereading different poems, as well as reading new ones.
New to me that is.
One of the poems I read was Sir John Suckling's Song. It struck me as somewhat bold. It was like an exclamation.
Now looking at Sir John Suckling, bold isn't really the first thing that comes
to mind. Well maybe except for his mustache. But it's his words that strike you, how they are put together and strung along.
Song
Sir John Suckling
Why so pale and wan, fond Lover?
Prithee why so pale?
Will, when looking well can't move her,
Looking ill prevail?
Prithee why so pail?
Why so dull and mute, young Sinner?
Prithee why so mute?
Will, when speaking well can't win her,
Saying why so mute?
Quit, quit, for shame, this will not move,
This cannot take her;
If of her self she will not love,
Nothing can make her,
The Devil take her.
Bold or not, I enjoyed the poem. I then spent some time rehearsing the poem, even saying it out loud to hear and feel the words as it went along.
I began to break down the lines, the words and the syllables. Putting into play what I had just recently learned. As I did this more things began to stand out to me then just the syllables but also things like alliteration, and a precise repetition of whole words and lines.
But bring it back to the subject of sounds, and how this relates to the poem Song, I struggled to find its rhythm and it's metrical form. What type of feet and meters does it use? How many are there per line? How many should there be? Goodness, so many questions.
By the end of the semester I am hoping to have a much better understanding of the fine workings of poetry, and I what I can create with the tools I am continuing to learn.
Poetry truly is an intricate structure and
I tip my hat to those who can build and shape it using it's true building blocks.
