/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17455019]

How do I learn the technical aspects of poetry? I like reading poetry, but I feel like I'm not appreciating all the alliterations and consonances and what have you. Because I studied photography, when I look at a photo, I can appreciate its composition, colors, framing, etc., but I don't really have a good understanding of the equivalent poetic elements.

Is there a good book that analyses good poems highlighting those aspects so I can learn by example? Or what does /lit/ recommend?

>inb4 just read more poetry
I do, but I want to learn the technical stuff in parallel.

[Anonymous No.17455041]

_Understanding Poetry_ by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D is everything you need.

It's the only book that actually covers meter and all the other technical aspects of poetry. Every other book expects you to learn the technical aspects of poetry by mere osmosis or by some woolly analysis that doesn't address structural techniques.

Unfortunately, Pritchard's book doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.17455047]

_Understanding Poetry_ by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D., is everything you need.

It's the only book that actually covers meter and all the other technical aspects of poetry. Every other book expects you to learn the technical aspects of poetry by mere osmosis or by some woolly analysis that doesn't address structural techniques.

Unfortunately, Pritchard's book doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.17455072]

>>17455019
poetry sucks and is for pedants and sycophants

[Anonymous No.17455079]

>>17455041
excellent post

Poetic Meter and Poetic Form by Fussell is good for basics.

[Anonymous No.17455111]

>>17455019
bump for interest

[Anonymous No.17455204]

meter is really the only aspect of poetry that is formal enough that learning about it helps
alliteration and consonance matter, obviously, but I don't think there are any formal schemes you can learn that will sharpen your appreciation of them beyond just reading widely
and meter in english poetry is honestly pretty easy: 90+% of it is iambic pentameter (depending somewhat on what time period you're interested in)
but learning to scan an iambic line is important and not totally obvious
by which I mean something like: perceiving where the primary stresses in a line are, and how the line would be read 'naturally' (i.e. if it were just prose) while at the same time percieving how it fits the underlying, regular meter (iambic pentameter or whatever)
i.e. perceiving both the regularity of the underlying pattern and how this individual line varies it
i don't have any resources for that (and certainly to get a knack for it you'll need to read plenty) but that's where I would suggest you focus your efforts
unless you're reading like unmetrical maya angelou shit in which case i can't help you (no-one can help you)

>>17455072
proseposters gtfo of /lit/
if you don't like poetry, you don't like literature

[Anonymous No.17455212]

>>17455047
This.

[Anonymous No.17455217]

Metrical Feet
by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Trochee trips from long to short;
From long to long in solemn sort
Slow Spondee stalks, strong foot!, yet ill able
Ever to come up with Dactyl's trisyllable.
Iambics march from short to long.
With a leap and a bound the swift Anapests throng.
One syllable long, with one short at each side,
Amphibrachys hastes with a stately stride --
First and last being long, middle short, Amphimacer
Strikes his thundering hoofs like a proud high-bred Racer.

If Derwent be innocent, steady, and wise,
And delight in the things of earth, water, and skies;
Tender warmth at his heart, with these meters to show it,
With sound sense in his brains, may make Derwent a poet --
May crown him with fame, and must win him the love
Of his father on earth and his father above.
My dear, dear child!
Could you stand upon Skiddaw, you would not from its whole ridge
See a man who so loves you as your fond S.T. Coleridge.

[Anonymous No.17455219]

Same question as OP but for a book in French/about French poetry.

[Anonymous No.17455238]

oh! i guess form matters and belongs on the list of things that reward study,
but again, what form do we actually use in english poetry? i can't think of any that have been truly widely used beyond the sonnet (in a few variants: shakespearean, italian/french)
in the late victorian era there's a surge of interest in marginal french forms like the villanelle, but that's really not very significant, and prior to that pretty much everything was either blank verse, heroic couplets, or sonnets
so again you really don't have much to cover before you can approach like 90+% of the english corpus

[Anonymous No.17455247]

>>17455217
these are greek feet, barely any of them have any equivalent in english prosody
>>17455219
this would actually be interesting, i second the request
i can't supply a full answer but i can suggest that the introduction to 'nine french poets' (classic anth) has a decent short guide to technicalities of french verse, and ditto the penguin 'french poetry 1820-1950'
but i still haven't got the knack of scanning an alexandrine desu

[Anonymous No.17455251]

>>17455217
This sucks

[Anonymous No.17455254]

>>17455247
>Barely any of them have any equivalent in English prosody
>Literally all of English prosody uses it
??

[Anonymous No.17455263]

>>17455251
Coleridge wrote it for students studying poetry. Don't really understand why you think it sucks

[Anonymous No.17455293]

>>17455047
>/lit/ Television & Film

[Anonymous No.17455320]

>>17455047
+1 for Team Pritchard.
I'm disappointed that the book doesn't exist.
Even if you have some innate talent for poetry, you can't just "wing it" and ignore studying the technical aspects.
Fuck Dead Poets Society, man.

[Anonymous No.17455326]

>>17455019
this might be a good start, anon

[Anonymous No.17455370]

>>17455320
>Fuck Dead Poets Society, man.
Yes and no. Technicality is important but soul is what really matter. Compare Paul Valery and, say, Sylvia Plath. From a technical standpoint, Valery BTFOs almost every poet of the 20th century I am aware of. Yet is poetry gets old really quickly. Sure he has a few immortal verses but it feels too artificial really quickly. On the contrary someone like Plath, while less technical, feels a lot more genuine. This wouldn't really show in a technical analysis.
So fuck DPS for saying that technicality isn't interesting, but yes DPS for trying to make people read poetry from a non technical standpoint.

[Anonymous No.17455480]

>>17455079
>Poetic Meter and Poetic Form by Fussell
Looks nice

[Anonymous No.17455505]

>>17455019
All the books in the top row of picrel, especially Poetic Meter and Poetic Form, as well as A Poetry Handbook.

[Anonymous No.17455516]

>>17455505
Based

[Anonymous No.17455531]

Didn't expect philosophy here lol