"Poemy" voice

[matsunosuperfan]

How often do you realize you're writing a certain way just because part of you thinks, "this is what poems are supposed to sound like?"

If I am honest, for me the answer is "all the fucking time." 

Working on ferreting out and actively resisting this impulse! 

Other than Bubba Clinton - who feels my pain??

[wasellajam]

How often do you realize you're writing a certain way just because part of you thinks, "this is what poems are supposed to sound like?"

If I am honest, for me the answer is "all the fucking time." 

Working on ferreting out and actively resisting this impulse! 

Other than Bubba Clinton - who feels my pain??

Well, yeah, sure. Image, sonics, metaphor, some internal structure to hang it on. But for me as a writer and reader a successful poem comes from, evokes, emotion. Spontaneous emotion is the best starting point for me, without it all the polish comes to naught. So I think it’s fine to have techniques in mind but a memorable poem, for me, comes from someplace less controlled, the wild bit that soars. But when I take a long enough break from writing and consistently reading poems to forget what they are “supposed to sound like” the return is certainly not improved by the forgetting. Nothing wrong with using tools if you can use them to make art.

[RiverNotch]

i got over it

right now, i'm into form, so sometimes my work can sound "arch", but it's not really the same. it can sound "arch" because it *is* arch, because i've gotten too stuck in spenser or because i am deliberately hearkening back to him, and sometimes it's because folks just don't read or hear enough poetry anymore---they clock a piece for sounding different, ignoring the fact that it's actually any good. case in point, but in reverse: the most recent poem of the day, the one celebrating Dolly Parton, has a really "arch" verse in it with "Down from Dover", that if you just read it you might wonder why someone in the 60s/70s would write something like it. only, taking it in as it is, especially insofar as it's a folk song---only *hear* it, be immersed in it---and it works.

apparently that song, too, Dolly wrote when she was just 18. real spontaneous work. spontaneity can be key, but unless you're as prolific as Dolly, it won't work often enough to make one any good. after spontaneity, then there's just not caring. there's just getting over it. there's just writing (and reading) so much that every time you pick up the pen, you're no longer thinking about if your piece "sounds like poetry", you just think if it sounds any good for what you mean for it to do.

[matsunosuperfan]

i got over it

right now, i'm into form, so sometimes my work can sound "arch", but it's not really the same. it can sound "arch" because it *is* arch, because i've gotten too stuck in spenser or because i am deliberately hearkening back to him, and sometimes it's because folks just don't read or hear enough poetry anymore---they clock a piece for sounding different, ignoring the fact that it's actually any good. case in point, but in reverse: the most recent poem of the day, the one celebrating Dolly Parton, has a really "arch" verse in it with "Down from Dover", that if you just read it you might wonder why someone in the 60s/70s would write something like it. only, taking it in as it is, especially insofar as it's a folk song---only *hear* it, be immersed in it---and it works.

apparently that song, too, Dolly wrote when she was just 18. real spontaneous work. spontaneity can be key, but unless you're as prolific as Dolly, it won't work often enough to make one any good. after spontaneity, then there's just not caring. there's just getting over it. there's just writing (and reading) so much that every time you pick up the pen, you're no longer thinking about if your piece "sounds like poetry", you just think if it sounds any good for what you mean for it to do.

 
Yeah!!

---

Consequence

The one I love 
has died. Today, 
that’s a useful lie. 

But one day
it will be the truth
and I won’t know why.

As the reader, I find myself following the same path, and that is a neat trick. The eye wants to glide past the first stanza as being too obvious. But it catches you on the enjambment, which is very clever, giving the stanza multiple possible meanings, which the second is anticipated to clarify...
On reaching the second stanza, my first thought is, why isn't it the same form as the first? But that becomes unimportant when you realize that you can't figure out the truth of the second stanza or the first. Which is maybe the position the speaker is in.
Very nice.

How often do you realize you're writing a certain way just because part of you thinks, "this is what poems are supposed to sound like?"

If I am honest, for me the answer is "all the fucking time." 

Working on ferreting out and actively resisting this impulse! 

Other than Bubba Clinton - who feels my pain??

Well, yeah, sure. Image, sonics, metaphor, some internal structure to hang it on. But for me as a writer and reader a successful poem comes from, evokes, emotion. Spontaneous emotion is the best starting point for me, without it all the polish comes to naught. So I think it’s fine to have techniques in mind but a memorable poem, for me, comes from someplace less controlled, the wild bit that soars. But when I take a long enough break from writing and consistently reading poems to forget what they are “supposed to sound like” the return is certainly not improved by the forgetting. Nothing wrong with using tools if you can use them to make art. 

Thank you both for replying so thoughtfully. These are wise words.

[busker]

When I write form poetry and want to avoid enjambment, “do it properly”.
Those aren’t serious poems, though. You’re already trying to write in a poemy way and have made it artificial