/lit/ - Literature

Write shit
make it rhyme
don't quit
your shit's prime

>>11612274
you have to want to express a thing, and then you express it, over time you find better ways of doing it, and the pool of things you want to express starts to deepen and enlarge into an entire different world of things you want to express and you develop different methods of doing so for different purposes

>>11612276
>>11612282
alright, how's this shit, first attempt:

a red filter is not an effective tool
for a photographer
because as he sets up now, in april
the fool has already took his own life

I want to spank tatsumaki

>>11612304
that isn't really a poem, you just divided your sentence, it has to be like a little essence you want to describe

like you have the concept of the red filter being inadequate(tbqh i cant understand what you're saying) so you would try to express this in some way. the usual way is a metaphor, but it doesn't have to be, it can just be an image

so you take your ineffable essence thing you want to communicate and you put in images, speech, metaphors, etc. that when taken together sort of summon the essence as like an aura that surrounds the individual ideas

why has your photographer taken his life and what is the relation between that and the filter?

modernist poetry;
free verse, like Elliott/or Pound
Made it so you can literally do -
whatever the 草 you want even
Writing a pretentious foreign Λόγος or two.
Because poetry
Is multiform
Like iamblichus.

read more poetry

Its simple.
Roses are red,
Violets are violet,
I just took a massive fuckin shit,
That splashed straight in the bog.

I like prose poetry and free verse. How much of a faggot do you think I am?

>>11612274
>>11612304
that's god awful. give up now and stop writing.

Lok OP I can tell by the fact you come here for advice and the fact that you've posted a anime-esque drawing of a flat chested girl that you're human garbage. The world is already full of human garbage "people" that try to pass themselves off as poets or something so they don't have to get real jobs. Either learn how to do manual labor like cleaning windows with your tongue or kill yourself.

There I've explained your purpose in this world. You should be grateful.

>>11612274
If you have to ask how to write a poem
you're fucked
that is to say your muse is fucking you
you aren't fucking her.
Now this isn't saying "become the GF"
(I wish it was)
But anyway, if you want to write a poem
you have to rape,
that is, you have to 'steal'
that is, you have to stop asking how.

>>11612858
Garbage. Kill yourself faggot.
"OMG so edgy 4chan reference"

It's overdone garbage. Anyway your """"""""POEM""""""""" doesn't even lform one complete thing--it's all over the place and says nothing of substance but OMG SO EDGY!!!!

Also, you begin three sentences with "that is".

Trash.

>>11612858
Yeah this is pretty terrible.

>>11612811
>>11612887
funny you keep bringing up suicidal suggestions; the person who's most likely to end their life early due to a complete void of hope in relationships and resource management will be you

>>11613323
I doubt that seeing as I don't have childrens cartoons saved on my compter

>>11613324
>media interests dictate your quality of life
>having a reaction macro means you're an anime nut
you're just a brainlet I'm afraid

>>11612858
I want to puke on my dick

>>11613345
it says a lot about you that you're so defensive of these childrens cartoons.

>>11612353
>草
I read this as a air horn going off

>>11613359
haha what? when did this happen
>some random comes into my thread and rages without provocation
>making shit up and hoping it sticks to save face, gets called out
I get you're having a rough patch and you're doing this probably for some form of decompression but it's not healthy, and this is how we know you're on the path to an early death -- one way or another.

>>11613345
>>11613359
>>11613367

y'all are brainlets LMFAO fucking losers

>>11612274
write whatever
claim its a poem
tell people who disagree with you that "they just don't get it"

>>11613373
It actually works

>>11613373
Not a bad way to go about it

>>11613367
who is that semon demon?

The only thing you need to know about writing a poem is that you can write a poem
Eventually you will cultivate that seed of all sprouting things within yourself
But you should be able to deduce that this is an instruction in verse
And not some quality poem

A poem I write
Nice, neat, tight
Empty I am
As my Art, bland

>>11613367
there is nothing wrong with antagonizing strangers on the internet. It is the purpose of this website.

>>11612304
should be a /lit/ banner

>>11612304
Honestly, dude... it's not half bad. Keep at it.

>>11612276
>>11612353
So the thread rolls on
Unable to realize the truth
Through sages and bumps do none realize
You don't need to rhyme to make a poem

>This is a bad example.

>>11613892
Wait fuck I'm deleting this hang on.

>>11612274
why would you? is there a more pretentious medium?

>>11612276
>>11612353
The thread rolls on
Through many posts
Sage
Bump
And finally realize
You don't need to rhyme to make a poem, faggots.

>This is a bad example.

>>11613909

>>11612790
A big one

>>11613323
>no u

>>11614066
For thee

>>11612274
Read a lot of poetry and study its elements/rules. I suggest "Poetic Meter and Poetic Form" by Paul Fussell. It's a bit advanced for beginners, but if you read a lot of poetry, look up some elements and read up on them a bit, even write a couple poems yourself, then it will help to better understand the book

>>11614070
Was outing yourself as a pseud intended?

>>11614089
But of course.

>>11612274
shake your head while
reciting
words in a manner
that is absolutely
unbearable

>>11612811
cursed post

>how the fuck do you write a poem
Very carefully

>>11612858
cringe and bluepilled

>>11613373
This is what modern art and poetry is all about.

>>11612274
Write an elegant sentence, count the syllables, and break that sentence up into however many lines while making sure each line has the same amount of syllables +/-1.

This is a sentence
With five syllables
Per line to give it
Proper meter, and
Random line breaks to
Make it look poetic

I'm the next toileTS

>>11612274
Is learning how to write poetry a good idea if I actually want to write song lyrics

>>11615085
Not so much, no. Song lyrics aren't metered, nor does strict rhyme matter much either

>>11612274
You write as if the wind blows through your fingers,
and spreads the ink now here then there;
As if the paper echoes your very whispers,
and verses settle
As if laid bare in dreams,
while you are wide awake.

(I don't know what to really tell you anon. There's a reason why poets used to say that the muses sing to them. Writing poetry comes naturally to me, I never really studied how to do it. It took me a lot longer to find an appropriate reaction image than it took me to write that stanza.)

>>11615304
That'a just flowery prose in arbitrary line breaks. There's some natural meter, but you stumble over it. There's reason enough to exclude rhyme depending on the tone/kind of poem you're writing, but meter, even a loose one, is important. I don't consider free verse to be poetry.

>>11615326
>That'a just flowery prose in arbitrary line breaks
> I don't consider free verse to be poetry.
Someone needs a good spanking.

>>11615333
Shakespeare's sonnets and the works of other poets around his time are infinitely more enjoyable than anything written in free verse. Why do you like free verse or consider it the same level as metered poetry?

>>11615372
>consider it the same level as metered poetry
You're reading things that no one said.

>Why do you like free verse
Because sometimes essence is more important than form.

>>11615385
I made assumptions, yes. I would say free verse is only technically poetry, but it's bad poetry. Form is essence, and having both is greater than having one.

I wrote a drunken poem to my ex-girlfriend last weekend and it was really cringe.

>>11615394
>paradise lost is bad poetry

>>11615410
Paradise Lost isn't free verse moron

>>11615385
>You're reading things that no one said.
To clarify: I think free verse is superior to poetry composed with a regular metre.
Free verse can give a poem more expressivity, if done right. You can't use the same metre for all ideas the same way you can't use a chamber ensemble to for grand opera. Strict form poetry is like music entirely sung by the choir, with no solo sections, or coloratura of any kind. Drab and monotonous.
Poetry is language brought at its closest to music. Songs are the first poems humans ever wrote.

I refuse your corset.
Faggot.

>>11615394
> Form is essence
This isn't even true in mathematics.

>>11612274
first you learn proper metre, then you write poems with a scheme (english sonnetes in iambic pentameter, french sonnets in dodecasyllabilic verse, a redaction of hexameter in your language...), theb you develope general themes and motives you want to express (think something like the seasonal word in a haiku), find an appropriate form (free verse is not acceptable), a form that fits the theme, don't be banal in your observation, try to use rhyme, alliteration, asonance, wordplay, don't go into "obviousness" ('I swing / my legs from a bench / and think / how I am a bird), work up a philosophical system (don't be phony here), and above else you READ READ READ and LEARN LEARN LEARN more and more poetry, both old, modern and contemporary

>>11615417
> Free verse can give a poem more expressivity, if done right.
No!

A poem is a negative ontology, the word always eludes what you think, and so is unable to correspond to your thoughts. If you write free verse, you aren't writing poetry, since you must bind the elusive word in some form, since if you write what the thing in the poem isn't, free, you're not getting the proper thing, since form is the only thing you can realistically use to define the poem, because it is real and positive ontology

>>11615450
>A poem is a negative ontology
Stopped reading here. Pseuds like you should be shot dead.

>>11615413
>muh blank verse
It's more arrhythmic than my heart

>>11615304
>I never really studied how to do it.
it shows

>>11615417
Do you think regular meter is only the forms popular in past poetry, or that it has no original expression allowable within it? Plenty of poets wrote in forms they created, like Spenser and his Faerie Queene as a single example, and substituting feet in a stable meter is required for expressive poetry, and it works so well precisely because it has a stable meter to deviate from. With free verse you get little to no meaningful deviation, which means there's no impact. There's plenty of forms and meters to work with for pretty much anything you want to express. Free verse doesn't have anything more expressive than a metered piece does, it simply does meter poorly.

>>11615453
If you're the anone that defends free verse and posts anime, I'm sorry to tell you, you are braindead

>>11615423
Forms and meters have meaning in themselves with poetry

>>11615454
It's metered. It isn't free verse.

>>11615463
That's not the point. The point is that strict form poetry has less expressive potential than free verse poetry.
Why do fogeys like you keep misrepresenting the opposing view? It's all so tiresome.

>>11615417
>>11615463
It's also funny that you say poetry is like music and laud free verse when metered works are closer to musical works than free verse ever has been

>>11615465
Stay mad, pseud.

>>11615479
Except you sacrifice meter for expression when meter is what makes expressiveness so impactful

>>11615486
>metered works are closer to musical works than free verse ever has been
I am not talking about pop music, you stupid faggot.

>>11615479
That's not true, is it? How can something "free" be more expressive? You're not even bothering to understand that writing bound poema takes more skill, more mastery of language, more originality in the words since you're testing your ability to write.
There's a reason why most of the "good" poetry is bound and not free, or written in verse

>>11615494
Metre is a mnemonic device, not an expressive one.

>>11615489
Stop projecting. You've not bothered to learn meter or theory yet you act all high with your Korean cartoons.
Even your poem is banal and bad. Using "as if" twice, sheesh

>>11615496
>>11615501
Never mentioned pop, and that you think it's only a mnemonic device shows that you haven't seriously looked into it at all. Meters and forms have meaning in themselves.

>>11615499
>You're not even bothering to understand that writing bound poema takes more skill, more mastery of language, more originality in the words since you're testing your ability to write.
None of this is true. It takes ever so slightly more work, since you need to push a square peg into a round hole. The average strict form poetry is stultifying and simplistic. The peaks are memorable precisely because they're so laborious to achieve, but judging a work by how many obstacles it successfully surmounted is nothing but pseudo-intellectual masturbation.

Difficulty has nothing to do with expressivity. Sometimes less is more.

>>11615512
>that you think it's only a mnemonic device shows that you haven't seriously looked into it at all.
You're talking nonsense. Anyone who spits out word salad like "a poem is a negative ontology" is not worth taking seriously.
Metre really is just a mnemonic device, and the various kinds of metres employed are mostly a matter of convention and organic development
(for example heroic metre taking the form it does because it makes remembering longer verses easier), not some intrinsic expressive worth.

>>11615525
It's no accident that free verse became more common once poetry stopped being a strictly oral art: ease of memorisation was no longer an issue.

>>11615513
Sure, you're free to believe what you want. Saying that a form is simplistic, that's just wrong. A sestina isn't, Dante-ian tercets aren't, crown of sonnets isn't, etc.
Free verse is simplistic since you're "free" to make or break verse where YOU see fit, and you've already said that you haven't learned any poetry, that it "comes from a muse." What makes you more correct? Give an example of true free verse, in which there isn't even a hint of meter (think Pound — it looks free, but the verse is bound); and what do you get? — Kaur.

How come, even of you think Mayakovsky free verse, he still intended the verse to have a "form", and purpose —to be broadcasted, which again doesn't go against his futurism. How come? Because form is needed for verse.

Even Rimbaud's poems in prose aren't "free", because, as he wanted, he was trying to go beyond the simple word.

You can't split the poem from the form.

>>11615525
I'm not negative ontology anon and yes, meter and forms absolutely have meaning. A sonnet's structure is essential for it's rhetorical effects, a limerick's form and meter are perfect for the comical and obscene. This goes for all traditional forms, but that doesn't mean you can't create a new form if you understand the effects of meter, etc.

>>11615544
Are you dyslexic? This is hat I said:
>The average strict form poetry is stultifying and simplistic.

Dante is not the average poet. He's the exception that proves the rule.

>>11615551
Doesn't matter since the average poet is always bad. Put the "greatest" free verse up to Milton and Shakespeare. It cannot compete.

>>11615551
You still haven't taken on the rest, and you're equating the poet with his form.
That's bad form, anon.

>>11615544

>all "true" free verse is comparable to Rupi Kaur

You guys are so embarrassing when you talk about modern poetry. You're all so completely ignorant, and yet perversely proud of it.

>>11615559
Go ahead and prove me wrong. Free verse is an oxymoron, and Kaur isn't even poetry.

Also, stop projecting.

>>11615559
Nice job adressing that anons point there. Take on this challenge >>11615555
Put any "great" free verse up against great metered poetry

>still no answers
lmaoing at freeversoids

>>11615592
It's sad that they call others ignorant when they have no idea about meter or rhyme

>>11615558
I am not equating the person with their work. Replace that with "Dante's poems are not the average poem" if you find it so confusing.

>>11615566
There is nothing to address. It's typical vapid fogeyism, or selective amnesia if you like, where only the greats are remembered and the rest is ignored.

>>11615555
What you seem to not be getting is that you your comparison is empty. It's like saying Chinese people aren't really short because Yao Ming exists.
Aim for less name dropping, and more substance, please.

>>11615600
I don't live in this thread.

>>11615602
And you still haven't adressed how a sestina (etc) isn't complex, how even free verse is bound
Disappointing!

>>11615609
>And you still haven't adressed how a sestina (etc) isn't complex
You have a really, really big problem with reading shit that no one wrote. Complexity =/= difficulty. Some very complex patterns are very easy to create. Take for example fractals.
You'd think someone who aims to discuss poetry would have at least a decent command of the various nuances of words, but then again...

you are a pseud.

>>11615602
You don't seem to realise why the greats are great. They are masters because of their use of meter, rhyme, and plenty of other elements. You're the one that has nothing of substance to say. Free verse allows more expression? Expression isn't the grade by which a poem is judged good or bad, and even if it were, having a stable meter to express against is far superior to an unmetered clunky verse. Either a line is metered well or poorly. You cannot be "free" from it, and that is why free verse is bad. Because it either reads like prose or it trips over itself. I will admit it expresses the mundane very well, but even the formal and mundane can be expressed in meter, and are more enjoyable to read.

>>11615608
Neither do I. Are you feeling unwell, anon?

>>11615620
English isn't my first language.
That said, complexity correlates with difficulty. Writing a good "free" verse is difficult, but not complex; but a sestina is both. You're missing the point, since you have no arguments, just opinions.

Again, show me free verse (not "free" verse)

>>11615624
>You don't seem to realise why the greats are great.
I do. What you don't seem to realise is that the greats are irrelevant when we're talking about the thing, poetry, itself. You're a typical pseud who only knows how to regurgitate the canon, with no understanding of why the respective artists have their place in it.

>>11615630
Free verse can be very complex. I am beginning to think you don't really know the meaning of either word.
In fact, properly speaking, free verse is almost always more complex than strict form verse. Regularity lowers complexity in general.
A periodic sequence is easier to encode than an aperiodic one. Which brings us back to the fact that metre has a chiefly mnemonic function in poetry.

>>11615647
You're dead-set to convince us that free verse is superior, but haven't produced a single acclaimed poet that wrote free verse.
Even the poetry you write is banality after banality, and this is the direct impact of your ignorance.

The thing you call free verse isn't even free since it has form that goes with the subject. There isn't anything free in verse, and even some poems I think of now that look free, aren't. Look up "today it's" from a contmporary French author (his name eludes me) or Mallarmé's Throw of the dice.

>>11615656
>You're dead-set to convince us that free verse is superior, but haven't produced a single acclaimed poet that wrote free verse.
See >>11615634 that's entirely beside the point.

>he doesnt write epic poems 600 pages long
:^)

>>11615662
>>11615656
The rest of your post is sheer imbecility by the way. You're once again talking about shit no one has ever claimed, arguing against some silly straw-man where free verse is absolutely and entirely devoid of any structure (pure noise, essentially).

>>11615634
You claim I don't know anything about poetry itself, yet you claim meter is nothing but a mnemonic device from ages past? Who here is a pseud, my friend?

>>11615681
Well, what are you claiming then?

>>11615691
Metre being a mnemonic device is a cold hard fact in the face of which you plug your ears and chant la la la.

>>11615501
Meter can be used in a way for expressive representation. Different meters do illicit different feelings, such as a good use of spondee to create a hectic atmosphere it use of iamb to create a serene atmosphere.

>>11615707
That free verse has more potential for expressivity, since it does not limit the creative process into a rigid mould. The limits are imposed and lifted as necessary, building up a structure for a purpose, and breaking it down when it no longer fits the ideas expressed.

>>11615708
Plenty of authorities in poetry would disagree with you. From Pope to Bloom. Anapestic meter is fast and light, iambic is somewhat formal, and substitutions from it have different effects. A pyrrhic foot substitution imposes heaviness, strain. While a spondee substitute foot is light and quick to read, giving the effect of speed. Changing the meter in a line suddenly implies a rhetorical change, and plenty of other things I can bring up. You give nothing but your opinion

>>11612274
Op, in all honesty, the only way to write good poetry is to read good poetry. And to understand what makes poetry good you'll no doubt have to go a few extra steps (using textbooks and online resources) to understand what devices a poem is utilizing (or not utilizing).

>>11615714
>Different meters do illicit different feelings, such as a good use of spondee to create a hectic atmosphere it use of iamb to create a serene atmosphere.
The association is entirely conventional. With enough repetition you can come to associate anything with anything. Meaning aptly conveyed, not form, is the yardstick for expressivity. Form is empty.

>>11615737
>Plenty of authorities in poetry would disagree with you
Too bad.

>>11615721
Ah, I misunderstood you, then. I agree, but I think that the name "free" in this case is unnecessary —
I defended this statement. Why?—Because form (not as a scheme) is not seperable from verse.

Even how you describe it, I still think that that is form, since you're binding expression to liberation.

>>11614734
Even academia.

>>11615766
Then you're just meandering. Of course nothing alone is truly free from form. But "free verse" has its own meaning, which is, roughly, "poetry that does not consistently employ a certain/well-established poetic composition pattern".

>>11615790
But traditional poets have used one off schemes for poetry before. It doesn't resemble what is referred to as free verse.

>>11615867
Yes, the boundaries are not exact. But they're clear enough. Why split hairs?

>>11615790
you're an idiot, kid

Fellas, I've been sincerely enjoying the free verse stuff of the last several poetry books I've bought on a whim. It's a lot less to do with the content of the language and more the rhythm created by the sounds of the words themselves.
You ever get a sequence of words stuck in your head like a piece of music?
Just write it down. Stack it against some other sentences that sound nice. There's a couple of narrative free verses I've come across that I've really enjoyed, but that's essentially all poetry is to me.

>>11612304
>already took
The rest of the poem was shit but this was the cherry on top of the shit sundae. What's your native tongue?

>>11615975
which books?

take a normal sentence and break it up into stanzas. Then add a lot of a stuff about vaginas, giving birth to the universe, rape, etc. You'll win a pulitzer.

>>11615902
One's metered and the other isn't, which makes all the difference

>>11615975
And metered poetry doesn't do that better you think?

>>11616049
Wagner > Haydn.

>>11616038
Donald Platt - Man Praying
Jennifer Kronovet - The Wug Test
(To a lesser extent), Sharon Olds - Blood, Tin, Straw
>>11616049
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
What compels me to free verse is to forego the assumption that a meter could adequately contain / behold whatever is being communicated better than the poet can do themselves by internal rhythm of their own design.
I suspect a lot of the best poems I've read in recent times are about nothing at all. There's nothing wrong with words for the sake of words.
>>11616119
^

>>11615566
Fucking pleb hasn't read "When Lilacs last in the Dooryard Bloom'd"

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Father died of a brain tumor
The loneliness never ends

>>11616241
Also he hasn't read anything past the Victorian age. I'm not wasting my time. That guy is in a self imposed cage.

>>11615566
You are completely fucking retarded.

>>11616234
Will look into them.

Anyway, the best poetry is the the poetry which is about n o t h i n g, meaning, poetry which is her being that creates herself during the poem and exists independent of the poem... hmmm, we may disagree but our opinions don't diverege much, maybe we just put them out there differently.

>>11616351
>poetry which is her being that creates herself during the poem and exists independent of the poem
Agreed.
I think people fail in comprehending a proclivity to free verse because 'poetry' would presume that it has anything to do with literature ( or even language directly ) rather than music.
In my opinion, the best free verse poems should be read aloud very loudly or very softly.

>>11616255
Hey me too

>>11616241
I don't like Whitman. The poem has a few lines where a stable meter comes through somewhat and those are the best to me. Some good imagery too, but the variable amount of syllables per line without meter just lends itself to being read as prose, not giving it some unique meter unto its own. Sure, it has it's own feeling while reading it, but so does all prose as well. Does any anon seriously prefer this kind of stuff to Shakespeare's sonnets or Marvell? Milton? They have all the intracacies of language AND meter, and rhyme as well.

>>11615761
Nice counter

>>11616928
I am literally autistic and not even I am this much of a prig. Seek help.

>>11617047
Free verse fags have nothing to argue with but their completely subjective opinion. I can give reasons why the poets I like are good and why I don't like free verse, but all I've gotten in return are insults and opinions without any reasons behind them

>>11617082
You're a prig. Your "reasons" are just rationalisations for your diseased soul.

>>11617101
Well then.
Farewell Anonymous; for thee my heart is sore.
Adieu for ever, I shall see thee no more.

>>11617113
I shall pray for you.