Everyone needs a happy place
The Lake Isle of Innisfree
I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.
And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the mourning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet's wings.
I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.
By William Butler Yeats
I guess this must have been his.
The truth is, when it comes to poetry I like reading the traditional kind. With rhyme and meter and proper stanzas. I recall reading somewhere that Gilbert Kohdidn't really take to traditional poetry as opposed to the more modern types of free verse and blank verse. He once listed a whole bunch of poets as his favourite and I recall not recognizing alot of my own favourites in that list. This was starkly opposed to another friend who declared that English poetry after WWII wasn't really worth reading.
I posted this up because I was having a particularly sad day a few days back and this cheered me up enormously. I've always loved that line "for peace comes dropping slow" and I really love the way it sounds when this poem is read out loud. Although I'd be the first to admit that the bees didn't really appeal to me; somehow the thought of all those buzzing sting laden insects gives me the creeps.
There are a few other "happy place" type poems that I have an especial fondness for. This wasn't really one of them because I've really only recently started reading Yeats. Most of them do have one thing in common which is to transport the happiness of the place with you, in your heart, in your mind's eye. So instead of fleeing to another place to find happiness, sometimes its a good idea to look inwards.
I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.
And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the mourning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet's wings.
I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.
By William Butler Yeats
I guess this must have been his.
The truth is, when it comes to poetry I like reading the traditional kind. With rhyme and meter and proper stanzas. I recall reading somewhere that Gilbert Kohdidn't really take to traditional poetry as opposed to the more modern types of free verse and blank verse. He once listed a whole bunch of poets as his favourite and I recall not recognizing alot of my own favourites in that list. This was starkly opposed to another friend who declared that English poetry after WWII wasn't really worth reading.
I posted this up because I was having a particularly sad day a few days back and this cheered me up enormously. I've always loved that line "for peace comes dropping slow" and I really love the way it sounds when this poem is read out loud. Although I'd be the first to admit that the bees didn't really appeal to me; somehow the thought of all those buzzing sting laden insects gives me the creeps.
There are a few other "happy place" type poems that I have an especial fondness for. This wasn't really one of them because I've really only recently started reading Yeats. Most of them do have one thing in common which is to transport the happiness of the place with you, in your heart, in your mind's eye. So instead of fleeing to another place to find happiness, sometimes its a good idea to look inwards.
posted by adinahaes at 12:26 AM
9 Comments:
You are right. Mr Wang does find traditional verse very limiting. So much potential play in language is sacrificed, all for the sake of ensuring that the last word of one line rhymes with the last word of another line.
In traditional verse, the language often gets unnaturally twisted the language, just to get the rhyme. Look at the last stanza of the Yeats poem:
"..While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core."
Why can't he say "grey pavements" ... which is so much more natural than "pavements grey"? Simply because he needs "grey" to be the last word in the line, to rhyme with something else.
It's sad. You have to sacrifice so much, just for the rhyming effect. And is the rhyming effect really so important towards creating a good poem?
You have to appreciate that free verse isn't necessarily any less attractive to the ear. In fact you get to play with even more subtle & intricate effects, which can be adjusted to suit your subject matter.
Check out the sounds/rhythm in this poem of mine, for instance - freed from the trap of traditional verse, it can replicate both the rhythm forced military march; and the growing disorientation in the soldier's mind; and then in the aftermath, switch to a calmer, more measured rhythm. At the same time, the poem is very rich in sound, notwithstanding it doesn't "rhyme".
I think that possibly what was natural language then might not seem like natural language to us.Also, poets, like many other artists often follow the conventions and fads of their day. Just take the Metaphysical poets and their heavy use of conceits.
"pavements grey" may not have sounded natural to you, but it did for me because I felt it fitted in with the rhyme scheme smoothly. I believe many other Victorian poets wrote in a similiar manner and given the language of the times, it may not have sounded strange or out of place to them.
Two of my favourite poets write in rhyme forms but their poetry is always always natural( Philip Larkin and Elizabeth Jennings) and reads beautifully.
Poetry is rooted in song and music, which is probably the reason for the rhyme and meter part of its technicalities. In pre literate days, songs and poetry with a rhyme made the poems easier to remember. Think nursery rhymes like Hickory Dickory Dock or Who Killed Cocky Robin.
The rhyming effect is not necessary for a good poem, the one you wrote is an excellent example of it. But then it may also depend on the kind of poem you wish to write.
It's a fairly crucial part of ballads which are longer story poems and sounding natural isn't really an aim in that case.But in many other poems, if the poet is good, it should not sound terribly unnatural.
But there is another side to this which is that rhyme and meter can also be a way of distinguishing poetry from prose and ordinary language.
For some poems, the rhyming effect adds to its gravity and rhythm. Many of the war poems I've read use this device to bring to mind military marches and drumbeats.( Eg. Charge of the Light Brigade)
While I don't take the stance my friend does, I do believe that it is an enormous pity to completely abandon traditional verse forms which I see relatively fewer modern poets making use of.
I agree that poetry can be rich in sound and read well even without rhyming;one of my favourite poems when I was a kid made heavy use of onomatopoeia but didn't rhyme. Also one of the verse forms I still love reading today is the haiku.
I need to continue this another time cos its midnight and I have a ridiculously early class tomorrow so I'll post again tomorrow evening.
I wonder if you've read "The Golden Gates" by Vikram Seth. It is unusual in several ways. It is a modern, full-length novel written completely in traditional verse.
I read it many years ago. It was quite good. Set in San Francisco, it is like an intersection of love triangles between a number of quite interesting characters.
A few curious things happened when I read the book. Firstly, after a while, I ceased to notice that the lines rhymed. Secondly, after a longer while, I ceased to notice that everything in the book was poetry. It became just a novel to me. It was a very good novel, but the rhyming became inconsequential. Everything could have been rearranged into paragraphs of prose, and it wouldn't have made a difference to me as a reader.
Writing this, I'm reminded of what another blogger, Amy, wrote about a certain rhyming poem entitled Hologram. (Btw, you should check out Amy's blog - if you like poetry, you will like Amy's blog). Amy wrote:
"Although I am not a huge fan of rhyming poetry, Kelleher handles the rhyme in this poem so expertly that I didn't even notice it until perhaps the third reading."
Isn't it amazing? Amy reads the poem three times before realising that it rhymes. To me, this shows just how unnecessary rhyming is, in creating a good poem.
Amy then writes:
"I believe it benefits the poem; it is not rhyming for rhyming's sake."
... which actually alludes to my peeve with rhyming poetry, where I often see what I think is rhyming for rhyming's sake. Frankly, it's not that difficult to make things rhyme - it doesn't take me 5 seconds to create a few rhymes:
"There was a fat cat
it caught a big rat
and ate it on the mat"
but when I really, really want to write something, why should I impose all these restrictions to myself?
Anyway, just my two cents' worth.
I bought "The Golden gate" a few years ago at a second hand book sale but never got around to reading it as I was leaving for Melbourne around the time.
I shall try to remember to dig it up the next time I go home.
Amy's blog is fun to read! Although I agreed much more with your interpretation of Hologram.
I think that people constrain themselves when they try to force rhyme into their poetry. But for some poets, it may come more naturally.
Shakespeare, Eliot, Yeats. One thing they all have in common is that they're dead. Long dead.
Traditional verse is dead too. Writing evolves over time, and traditional verse is the dinosaur. I can hardly think of any serious poet active in the last 20 years who writes rhyming verse.
Of course, you can still enjoy rhyming verse today. Personally I still listen to Simon & Garfunkel and Carole King. I won't deceive myself, however, that this is where pop music is at today.
As a poet, I stay away from traditional verse for reasons I have mentioned. As a reader, however, my considerations are different. Really all I'm after is writing that appeals - stuff that I can relate to. For obvious reasons, it is a lot easier for me to relate to something written in 2005 or 1995 or even 1975, than something written in 1823.
I think I have a fairly good sense of what Sanjay refers to as "angsty self indulgent navel-gazing". And I think he is simply reading bad poetry. The angsty self-indulgent navel-gazing phase is a phase which practically all aspiring writers go through (and from which many emerge). If you poke around the blogosphere, you'll find many teenagers writing such poetry. And usually it rhymes, haha.
Of course, as a more sophisticated poetry reader, this is not the kind of poetry you'd want to read.
On a separate note, I wonder how many languages actually have poetry that rhymes (whether nowadays or in the past).
Eg does French poetry rhyme? What about Japanese, Korean, Swahili, Malay, Tamil, Spanish, Thai or German poetry?
I really don't know .... Interesting thought.
Actually I was also talking about my own preferences. So don't get into a huff, Sanjay.
I *am* glad, however, that my preferences being the way they are, I probably won't run out of poetry to read, for a looooong time. After all, my favourite poets are still alive, and writing, and probably will continue to do so for quite a while.
Unlike Yeats, Shakespeare etc.
In case you misunderstood - when I was talking about the poetry that a more sophisticated would not want to read, I wasn't referring to rhyming verse nor to free verse.
I was referring to "angsty self indulgent navel-gazing" poetry which I think can either rhyme or not rhyme, and which, I'm sure, existed in the distant past just as it exists today. Poetry-writing is very much an "interior" exercise, and angsty, self-indulgent navel-gazing is therefore a trap which I think inexperienced poets (past or present, and ryhming or non-rhyming) would regularly fall into, until and unless they realise that they actually have READERS to think about.
Frankly, I'm a bit amazed that you level the charge of "angsty self indulgent navel-gazing" at modern poets. Not to sound patronising, but it does make me wonder what modern poets you've been reading.
Maybe you shoud check out Wislawa Zymborska, as an example of modern poetry that is utterly non "angsty self-indulgent and navel-gazing". Her themes are extremely broad and wide-ranging; often humorous; practically 100% angst-free; often completely without the word "I and quite non self-indulgent;
instead of gazing at her navel, she considers topics as immense / diverse as evolution; the creation of the universe; world wars; Hitler's childhood; the Abominable Snowman; space travel; nuclear scientists etc in her poetry.
Actually I was also talking about my own preferences. So don't get into a huff, Sanjay.
I *am* glad, however, that my preferences being the way they are, I probably won't run out of poetry to read, for a looooong time. After all, my favourite poets are still alive, and writing, and probably will continue to do so for quite a while.
Unlike Yeats, Shakespeare etc.
In case you misunderstood - when I was talking about the poetry that a more sophisticated would not want to read, I wasn't referring to rhyming verse nor to free verse.
I was referring to "angsty self indulgent navel-gazing" poetry which I think can either rhyme or not rhyme, and which, I'm sure, existed in the distant past just as it exists today. Poetry-writing is very much an "interior" exercise, and angsty, self-indulgent navel-gazing is therefore a trap which I think inexperienced poets (past or present, and ryhming or non-rhyming) would regularly fall into, until and unless they realise that they actually have READERS to think about.
Frankly, I'm a bit amazed that you level the charge of "angsty self indulgent navel-gazing" at modern poets. Not to sound patronising, but it does make me wonder what modern poets you've been reading.
Maybe you shoud check out Wislawa Zymborska, as an example of modern poetry that is utterly non "angsty self-indulgent and navel-gazing". Her themes are extremely broad and wide-ranging; often humorous; practically 100% angst-free; often completely without the word "I and quite non self-indulgent;
instead of gazing at her navel, she considers topics as immense / diverse as evolution; the creation of the universe; world wars; Hitler's childhood; the Abominable Snowman; space travel; nuclear scientists etc in her poetry.
As an additional point, I think most poets alive today would rather not have poetry be regarded as a "high art form" for an exclusive "self-important intelligentsia".
All writers like to have readers - the more the merrier - and poets are no exception. If poetry was for the masses, then a poet's life would be all the more rewarding. I would love to read my poetry at a reading attended by an audience of hundreds, as opposed to (sigh) ten.
Like you, I am interested in poetry that explores society;
except that as a poetry reader, I am interested in poetry that explores society today, as opposed to some particular period in history;
and as a poet, I am interested in writing poetry that specifically explores MY society in modern times (ie contemporary Singapore), for example, this, this and that.
Also, it is not that I specifically like poetry, but it is much more convenient to read a poem, as opposed to, say, an entire novel -
and the same applies to writing poetry (as opposed to, say, writing a novel).
If I had the time, I should want to write novels like Michael Ondaatje's (with large sections of highly poetic prose), alas, even if I had the talent, I would not have the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home