![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kiralamouseI wonder where we get the thought that rhyme makes a poem by itself alone, or that it's just an amateurish crime which modern poets have long since outgrown. The first allows a doggerel to claim a title which it doesn't quite deserve. The second theory tries to shift the blame when unskilled poets simply lack the nerve to try the tricky task of language play while delving deep for visionary dreams. They both ignore the heart of poetry: making language more than what it seems to be and using words so carefully they grow to more than they can be.
And there's the idiots
who seem to think
that by simply breaking prose into
weird lines
that
they make poetry.
The only use I see for this
is trying to make written words
echo the sense
of the breaks
of the speech
of the speaker.
Otherwise, please
try to follow
SOME meter.
[/rant stemming from jealousy of true poets]
And now tis time for lunch. But man, is it fun to do wordplay like that. Even if it isn't true poetry (true poetry= something that makes more sense and is best said in non-prose fashion anyway; false poetry= making prose rhyme and scan by adding unnecessary words and meter fillers or breaking up prose artificially), it is fun to play with.
And there's the idiots
who seem to think
that by simply breaking prose into
weird lines
that
they make poetry.
The only use I see for this
is trying to make written words
echo the sense
of the breaks
of the speech
of the speaker.
Otherwise, please
try to follow
SOME meter.
[/rant stemming from jealousy of true poets]
And now tis time for lunch. But man, is it fun to do wordplay like that. Even if it isn't true poetry (true poetry= something that makes more sense and is best said in non-prose fashion anyway; false poetry= making prose rhyme and scan by adding unnecessary words and meter fillers or breaking up prose artificially), it is fun to play with.
