Word usage in poetry

[milo]

As part of the modernist movement, one of the goals was to apply intention to poetry.  As a result, one of the "rules" was :

1. To use absolutely no word that does not contribute to the presentation.
   

"Use no superfluous word, no adjective which does not reveal something.
Don’t use such an expression as “dim lands of peace.” It dulls the image. It mixes an abstraction with the concrete. It comes from the writer’s not realizing that the natural object is always the adequate symbol."1

I think we talk a lot about word usage - many times, I will ask why did I use that word?  Was that the best word?  Could I eliminate the word?

What are your thoughts about this, could you defend every word you use in a poem?  Could you explain it to yourself or to others?

Thanks

1. A Retrospect - E. Pound

[Quixilated]

Poems have always had intention. The focus of the intention might vary from style to style, so the way the words are used and the reason for placing them there cannot all be measured by the same scale. One poet's primary objective might be the message or a metaphor, so words are chosen by their meaning and priority is given to those that can put a double meaning in every drop. Another poet's main objective might be the sonics, so word length and vowel choice might take precedence over preciseness of meaning. In both cases the words are chosen for a specific reason, but the sonic poet will have less to explain about the meaning of the words and the metaphor poet will have less concern about how many syllables the word may have and whether or not it starts with the letter "T."

Ambrosia occurs, of course, when a poet can answer multiple purposes with equal skill. But this probably requires the writer to either have the time and education of a Victorian Duke or else to have some degree of madness.

Alas, for my own poetry, no. I cannot give a defense for every word. However, usually I write them down to stop them running in circles in my head, so by the time they make it into a poem, there are not many alternate options that I can accept without risking it becoming unpinned. The words are chosen because that's what the words were. It's less like creating and more like documenting an event. However, I also do not consider myself to be a very good poet. I'm here to learn how to distill thoughts into slightly more potent versions of the original formula. But mostly I'm here because I enjoy watching other people become actually good poets.

[wasellajam]

This is right up my alley today. I have been reading lengthy workshop threads trying to relearn how to critique. I spent this morning in an old thread The Gift of the Open Hand, a meager little poem that said a bit, nothing earth shattering. The crit was so generous and inspiring, examination of so many word choices, the same word essential to one reader and poem stopping to another. And everyone was up for a discussion of why. So interesting!

So, should I be able to defend each word? To myself I lean towards yes. But are the sonics or feel of an "unnecessary" word enough to justify it? For me a sure, why not? Even an inside joke will sometimes land in some unpredictable way for a reader. A poem is more than a collection of words.

[milo]

This is right up my alley today. I have been reading lengthy workshop threads trying to relearn how to critique. I spent this morning in an old thread The Gift of the Open Hand, a meager little poem that said a bit, nothing earth shattering. The crit was so generous and inspiring, examination of so many word choices, the same word essential to one reader and poem stopping to another. And everyone was up for a discussion of why. So interesting!

So, should I be able to defend each word? To myself I lean towards yes. But are the sonics or feel of an "unnecessary" word enough to justify it? For me a sure, why not? Even an inside joke will sometimes land in some unpredictable way for a reader. A poem is more than a collection of words.

well, these easy answer is always :

1. To use absolutely no word that does not contribute to the presentation.
   

"It was to contribute to my presentation"

[wasellajam]

Poems have always had intention. The focus of the intention might vary from style to style, so the way the words are used and the reason for placing them there cannot all be measured by the same scale. One poet's primary objective might be the message or a metaphor, so words are chosen by their meaning and priority is given to those that can put a double meaning in every drop. Another poet's main objective might be the sonics, so word length and vowel choice might take precedence over preciseness of meaning. In both cases the words are chosen for a specific reason, but the sonic poet will have less to explain about the meaning of the words and the metaphor poet will have less concern about how many syllables the word may have and whether or not it starts with the letter "T."

Ambrosia occurs, of course, when a poet can answer multiple purposes with equal skill. But this probably requires the writer to either have the time and education of a Victorian Duke or else to have some degree of madness.

Alas, for my own poetry, no. I cannot give a defense for every word. However, usually I write them down to stop them running in circles in my head, so by the time they make it into a poem, there are not many alternate options that I can accept without risking it becoming unpinned. The words are chosen because that's what the words were. It's less like creating and more like documenting an event. However, I also do not consider myself to be a very good poet. I'm here to learn how to distill thoughts into slightly more potent versions of the original formula. But mostly I'm here because I enjoy watching other people become actually good poets.

So you can defend every word, each is a permanent piece of the poem.

[milo]

Poems have always had intention. The focus of the intention might vary from style to style, so the way the words are used and the reason for placing them there cannot all be measured by the same scale. One poet's primary objective might be the message or a metaphor, so words are chosen by their meaning and priority is given to those that can put a double meaning in every drop. Another poet's main objective might be the sonics, so word length and vowel choice might take precedence over preciseness of meaning. In both cases the words are chosen for a specific reason, but the sonic poet will have less to explain about the meaning of the words and the metaphor poet will have less concern about how many syllables the word may have and whether or not it starts with the letter "T."

Ambrosia occurs, of course, when a poet can answer multiple purposes with equal skill. But this probably requires the writer to either have the time and education of a Victorian Duke or else to have some degree of madness.

Alas, for my own poetry, no. I cannot give a defense for every word. However, usually I write them down to stop them running in circles in my head, so by the time they make it into a poem, there are not many alternate options that I can accept without risking it becoming unpinned. The words are chosen because that's what the words were. It's less like creating and more like documenting an event. However, I also do not consider myself to be a very good poet. I'm here to learn how to distill thoughts into slightly more potent versions of the original formula. But mostly I'm here because I enjoy watching other people become actually good poets.

So you can defend every word, each is a permanent piece of the poem.

You can always defend every word, my purpose in posting was more of a thought experiment.

I thin it can be useful to consider every word

[wasellajam]

This is right up my alley today. I have been reading lengthy workshop threads trying to relearn how to critique. I spent this morning in an old thread The Gift of the Open Hand, a meager little poem that said a bit, nothing earth shattering. The crit was so generous and inspiring, examination of so many word choices, the same word essential to one reader and poem stopping to another. And everyone was up for a discussion of why. So interesting!

So, should I be able to defend each word? To myself I lean towards yes. But are the sonics or feel of an "unnecessary" word enough to justify it? For me a sure, why not? Even an inside joke will sometimes land in some unpredictable way for a reader. A poem is more than a collection of words.

well, these easy answer is always :

1. To use absolutely no word that does not contribute to the presentation.
   

"It was to contribute to my presentation"

But I assume the original post is something people actually discussed. Or did you make me thimk and type for not even an imaginary reason?

[milo]

This is right up my alley today. I have been reading lengthy workshop threads trying to relearn how to critique. I spent this morning in an old thread The Gift of the Open Hand, a meager little poem that said a bit, nothing earth shattering. The crit was so generous and inspiring, examination of so many word choices, the same word essential to one reader and poem stopping to another. And everyone was up for a discussion of why. So interesting!

So, should I be able to defend each word? To myself I lean towards yes. But are the sonics or feel of an "unnecessary" word enough to justify it? For me a sure, why not? Even an inside joke will sometimes land in some unpredictable way for a reader. A poem is more than a collection of words.

well, these easy answer is always :

1. To use absolutely no word that does not contribute to the presentation.
   

"It was to contribute to my presentation"

But I assume the original post is something people actually discussed. Or did you make me thimk and type for not even an imaginary reason?

this is the original post, we are the people discussing it

[wasellajam]

I thought the "Modernist Movement" was discussing it before us. So, milo, where do you stand?

[milo]

I thought the "Modernist Movement" was discussing it before us. So, milo, where do you stand?

I think as a writer, I should question my own intent for every word.  Sometimes, I know I get lazy and say "that word is for meter, dunce".  I don't think that is a good answer.  I think line breaks should, ideally, land on important words or at least used to good effect.

I think poets have a tendency to like to describe pretty or interesting things because they are pretty or interesting.  The modernists wouldn't like that. I tend to side more with the modernists though I can certainly be silly in my own writing and a pun or a joke excuses everything.

I do think there is value in examining what we've written to see if it could be better.  Word usage is one way.  I also think that if an image is planted in a poem for no reason other than it is interesting or pretty and unrelated to the central metaphor than it is a re herring. That can lose the trust of your readers.

I think Quix did a great job analyzing the WCW plum poem.  No wasted words or thoughts.  Everything doing double duty.  If there is extraneous verse in there it would lead her astray.

I am rambling.  As a reader, I question everything a writer did.  Think of that WCW poem - you really needed to read into it to get everything.  If there are a lot of disconnected images I question the writers' intent.  I will usually call that out.

Thanks for the discussion

[wasellajam]

I thought the "Modernist Movement" was discussing it before us. So, milo, where do you stand?

I think as a writer, I should question my own intent for every word.  Sometimes, I know I get lazy and say "that word is for meter, dunce".  I don't think that is a good answer.  I think line breaks should, ideally, land on important words or at least used to good effect.

I think poets have a tendency to like to describe pretty or interesting things because they are pretty or interesting.  The modernists wouldn't like that. I tend to side more with the modernists though I can certainly be silly in my own writing and a pun or a joke excuses everything.

I do think there is value in examining what we've written to see if it could be better.  Word usage is one way.  I also think that if an image is planted in a poem for no reason other than it is interesting or pretty and unrelated to the central metaphor than it is a re herring. That can lose the trust of your readers.

I think Quix did a great job analyzing the WCW plum poem.  No wasted words or thoughts.  Everything doing double duty.  If there is extraneous verse in there it would lead her astray.

I am rambling.  As a reader, I question everything a writer did.  Think of that WCW poem - you really needed to read into it to get everything.  If there are a lot of disconnected images I question the writers' intent.  I will usually call that out.

Thanks for the discussion

Can you link to the Plum thread? Can't find it.

[milo]

I thought the "Modernist Movement" was discussing it before us. So, milo, where do you stand?

I think as a writer, I should question my own intent for every word.  Sometimes, I know I get lazy and say "that word is for meter, dunce".  I don't think that is a good answer.  I think line breaks should, ideally, land on important words or at least used to good effect.

I think poets have a tendency to like to describe pretty or interesting things because they are pretty or interesting.  The modernists wouldn't like that. I tend to side more with the modernists though I can certainly be silly in my own writing and a pun or a joke excuses everything.

I do think there is value in examining what we've written to see if it could be better.  Word usage is one way.  I also think that if an image is planted in a poem for no reason other than it is interesting or pretty and unrelated to the central metaphor than it is a re herring. That can lose the trust of your readers.

I think Quix did a great job analyzing the WCW plum poem.  No wasted words or thoughts.  Everything doing double duty.  If there is extraneous verse in there it would lead her astray.

I am rambling.  As a reader, I question everything a writer did.  Think of that WCW poem - you really needed to read into it to get everything.  If there are a lot of disconnected images I question the writers' intent.  I will usually call that out.

Thanks for the discussion

Can you link to the Plum thread? Can't find it.

right here

[Tiger the Lion]

An honest question... 
where does this leave translations? 

A single word may simultaneously rhyme, carry the meter, contribute to a motif and make an allusion. Is it even possible to translate every word when each of those words is, quite rightly. multitasking?

[milo]

An honest question... 
where does this leave translations? 

A single word may simultaneously rhyme, carry the meter, contribute to a motif and make an allusion. Is it even possible to translate every word when each of those words is, quite rightly. multitasking?

I think this is an excellent question.  In many ways, a translation ends up being a new poem.  I have read multiple translations of the same poem and hated one and loved another.  You can see in the poem of the day threads, there was one that completely ignored a word that was obviously SUPER important to the author's intent.  Does that mean the translated poem didn't work?  Actually it was still pretty good but it was completely missing a valuable character trait and an allusion that the reader of the translated poem would just never get.

It really is significant