20 Mar '11 08:27>2 edits
Poems that don't rhyme...they don't do anything for me!
See, as someone who draws - and has a a rigid opinion about art; I liken "poetry", for the sake of analogy, to "drawing or painting". For some people when they draw or paint - what is important is that if X is the thing they're trying to render, then X is how it must appear to the viewer, in minute detail. That is also what I expect to see from a drawing or painting. Other people however think that drawing or painting should be an expressive act - that one should not be so constrained by 'contrived rules' and just create! Now not once in the thirty years I have lived have I recalled ever liking abstract expressionism - I really do find it disagreeable; moreover, many have tried to `open my mind' and failed.
I take the same view with poems, in that for me they have to rhyme, If I hit the end of an entire verse without seeing this rhyming structure somehow, I am disappointed - and ask myself why couldn't they have just set the entire thing, with respect to line length, etc... as one usually sets a piece of prose?
I am of course aware it is claimed that the rhythm contained within a poem isn't defined by how the end words of a line sound; but for me, the requirement that a piece of poetic writing must succeed in meeting a techincal constraint is of paramount importance. Like a drawing of a face must look exactly like that particular face (at the time it was drawn), for me a poem has to rhyme!
It is my position that to like or dislike certain thing depends on more than just familiarity (or lack of such) with them. That is, I assert that poems which rhyme, and poems that are free verse appeal to two different mindsets - one likes patterns and symmetries, technical and transparent structure - another that is creative, expressive, spontaneous, and dislikes constraint.
Thoughts?
See, as someone who draws - and has a a rigid opinion about art; I liken "poetry", for the sake of analogy, to "drawing or painting". For some people when they draw or paint - what is important is that if X is the thing they're trying to render, then X is how it must appear to the viewer, in minute detail. That is also what I expect to see from a drawing or painting. Other people however think that drawing or painting should be an expressive act - that one should not be so constrained by 'contrived rules' and just create! Now not once in the thirty years I have lived have I recalled ever liking abstract expressionism - I really do find it disagreeable; moreover, many have tried to `open my mind' and failed.
I take the same view with poems, in that for me they have to rhyme, If I hit the end of an entire verse without seeing this rhyming structure somehow, I am disappointed - and ask myself why couldn't they have just set the entire thing, with respect to line length, etc... as one usually sets a piece of prose?
I am of course aware it is claimed that the rhythm contained within a poem isn't defined by how the end words of a line sound; but for me, the requirement that a piece of poetic writing must succeed in meeting a techincal constraint is of paramount importance. Like a drawing of a face must look exactly like that particular face (at the time it was drawn), for me a poem has to rhyme!
It is my position that to like or dislike certain thing depends on more than just familiarity (or lack of such) with them. That is, I assert that poems which rhyme, and poems that are free verse appeal to two different mindsets - one likes patterns and symmetries, technical and transparent structure - another that is creative, expressive, spontaneous, and dislikes constraint.
Thoughts?