Poetry Forum

Oh desperate Hope, causing such pain!
Showing the wrong way, again and again.
Turning my head 'round, away from what's true:
Ignoring the facts and just following you.

Encouraging dreams that never will be,
Clouding my reason, not letting me see:
That life is not perfect but has its dark side,
That hours are lonesome when you, Hope, have died.

Ha Ha nice one Dublin like it.

See rhyming's not so bad

Obviously... Rhyming's the best - despite what some people nowadays say. Glad you like it, though...

Rhyming is nice if one can use it effectively,and I'm afraid I 'm one person who doesn't like rhymes that much. In spite of that , I must say I liked the use of rhyme here. The message is also clear, and I like the ending.
Cheers.

You've said a few good things about hope here, dub. I like it.

One thing you might consider is that it's very, can I say rhythm-driven? It doesn't sound like normal conversational speech - it says "Look at me, I'm poetree!"

That's fine, if it's your choice, but there are people who will tell you that you should aspire to the conversational (as long as it isn't banal or clumsy).

Just something for you to think about. Have you tried freer verse at all?

As Bo Diddley nearly said, Who Do You Read? As Bo Diddley really said, Who Do You Love?

Cheers

David

I don't want to promote my style, but why don't you like rhymes, arunansu? Don't you think that poetry put into rhyming (not forced, but well executed rhyming) is the closest we can get to poetic beauty?
I can see that you might say that many amateurs don't reach that level and therefore their rhyming is bad - which then makes you not like it. But how come the general aversion? And what do you think about poets like Wordsworth or Blake? Just some questions out of pure curiosity...

@ David,

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure what to make of it, though. I guess, I do try to keep it 'rhythm-driven' - it's not something that just happens, you do work on it. The reason for this is quite simple - I just like this kind of poetry. You know, I like reading poetry out loud and I find it very difficult to get the intonation right when it comes to contemporary and modern poetry. But just read a poem by Anne Bronte and because the rhythm is so intact it just flows naturally out of you. Do you understand that?! I try to aspire into these kind of realms (if that sounds too presumptuous: I like her style and I try to write my own stuff in a similar way).
As to the conversational style: The term seems self-explanatory but could you give me an example? Of the stuff I've recently read, 'Dulce et decorum est' by Wilfred Owen comes to mind. It has rhymes, but its rhythm is not as rigid. Hearing the term 'conversational' the first time today, I might say it would suit this poem. Would you agree or can you give me a better example?
And you ask whether I ever attempted a freer style. I'd say, I do have a few poems that might fit this category - if I understand it properly. It's a non-rhyme one, though. I might put it up some time here - although I think I have to do some reviews first...
Anyway, cheers for the shared thoughts. Very useful and enrichening!

Dub, I think "Dulce et decorum est" is a good example. If it is conversational - and it's not far off - it's a heightened mode of conversation, not necessarily how we'd speak in an everyday way, but also not enslaved to the rhythm (which is your basic iambic pentameter abab rhyming, but not oppressively so).

Bring on the free verse! But yes, get your crits up to date too.

Cheers

David

Isn't it true that Free Verse is simply the preserve of those unsure of their pronunciation?
Obviously there are merits in both rhyming and non-rhyming poetry but why let that spoil a good argument? What I have observed is that Modern Poetry has become synonymous with non-rhyming verse and there exists in some quarters a rather elitist and condescending attitude towards rhyme, though I am not, repeat not, accusing any of the above correspondents of this!

ray miller wrote:Isn't it true that Free Verse is simply the preserve of those unsure of their pronunciation?

Nope, not true at all, and possibly the most ignorant suggestion about poetry I've heard in a long time. (Do you even mean "pronunciation"?)

However, Ray, I agree with the rest of what you say - the non-rhymers tend to look down on the rhymers. There are loads of reasons for that, some good, some bad. I don't mind, I like a bit of rhyme myself. Whatever floats your boat.

I'm now going to row mine away from this controversy. Rhyme, or don't rhyme, as you wish - just make it good.

We'll let you know if it's good.

Cheers

David

I like a good argument so let me chuck my tuppence worth in.

Many crits ago David described poetry as something like (I am paraphrasing) "the use of exactly the right words in the right sequence and with the right phrasing". thats not quite what he said - I wish I could find that quote. Anyway my point is that there are many finely crafted poems without rhyme but if the right words at the right time happen to rhyme then use them. Rhyme should achieve something in my view - e.g. emphasise a point, propel the poem forward or create a structure. Rhyme for rhymes sake isn't worth a candle. You should never let a poem be or appear to be a slave to the rhyme.

Also rhyme should be used in various ways but always subtley e.g. within lines, half way into lines, between stanzas, half rhymes etc not just abab. I learned a lot about using rhyme by reading Larkin.

Finally, for the novice good rhyme is very very difficult to achieve - other aspects of poetic craft can be developed more readily without the strictures of rhyme. Then when these are developed and rhyme is added the power of your writing will be enhanced.

To rhyme or not to rhyme - therefore depends on the poem but for the inexperienced use it scarcely otherwise the continual endeavour to rhyme will either wear you out or mean you produce a lot of poor rhyming verse and that isn't poetry.

elphin

This reminds me of the court writing from the 17th Century. It's witty, short, about something as vague as hope, and's apostrophic.

Now, that's good or bad. I'll let you decide which. Let me just say, though, that in contemporary poetry circles, people would be a little dubious.

Oh desperate Hope, causing such pain!
Showing the wrong way, again and again.
Turning my head 'round, away from what's true:
Ignoring the facts and just following you. - grammatically this doesn't work. The subject of the sentence is Hope in the first two lines, and there is no indication that this changes in the third and fourth. Yet, it seems you want us to believe that you turn your head around, and you ignore the facts, and not hope. Because you lack an 'I' (because of metre?), the meaning is obscured, and the 'Turning' comes across as an interesting verb related to Hope, while 'ignoring' doesn't make sense ('hope ignores the acts and just follows you')

I like metre and rhyme. I like them a lot. I write exclusively in them. And you've got quite an interesting metre here, but is it a little irregular?

Oh desp/erate Hope/, causing /such pain! - Iamb, anapest, trochee, iamb
Showing/ the wrong way, /again/ and again. - trochee, anapest (just), iamb, anapest
Turning/ my head 'round/, away/ from what's true: - trochee, anapest, iamb,anapest
Ignor/ing the facts/ and just foll/owing you. - iamb, anapest, anapest, anapest

It doesn't seem particularly regular, see what I mean? I like the alternating rhythm, but you should stick with one or two of them instead of having three different alternatives. Maybe fix L4 into the rhythm of L1, or the other way round.

I enjoyed this though and I hope that helps
Dave

NB

About rhyme and free verse in general - all the good free verse relies on the same musical techniques that the formal poems do. Rhyme, I would argue, is actually easier. I would guess the elitism against form is for two reasons: this modern and theoretical obsession with the powerful and the oppressed, and the fact that rhyming can sound childish and embarrasing when done badly.

Hi lads, Elph and Dave - very sensible and judicious offerings.

I'm not looking to antagonise you Ray, just to get you to open your mind to the infinite possibilities of not rhyming.

Cheers

David

To David and others, my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote about Free Verse and pronunciation-it was meant as a joke and I thought would be apparent as such. It seemed the debate needed lightening a little. I agree entirely with what was said regarding the right words in the right places etc. whatever mode is employed.What I find irritating is the po-facedness and reverence which invariably adheres to Poetry. I hadn't felt you were being antagonistic, it's just that I'm not as serious as I might appear!
Best Wishes, Ray

Irony! I must have missed that.

Fair enough. Carry on, Ray.

Cheers

David

the rhyming here is very good and unforced.

@ Wabznasm,

Thank you for your comments and the effort you put into your critique. Let me comment on a few things, though:

What does apostrophic mean? I can't make sense of that word in that context.

Then, I'm afraid you're right. I can twist it and turn it but the grammatical error remains. You did well to point that out, I read the poem umpteen times and never noticed that there was a mistake. I'm not sure as to how to solve it because I hate meddling with a poem that I consider properly finished (which means for me that it finds its way into my poetry journal in its final form).

I really appreciate your analysis of the meter. I'm not so familiar with the terminology anymore nor am I good at identifying the different kinds of meter. I should do some 'revision' on that some time soon, at the moment I'm not quite able to use your advice properly and get rid of the irregularities. But thanks anyway.