This essay was not originally written as a criticism. I chose to write an academic essay, and didn’t see it fit into any other category than this one. I shall be a little wiser next time in my choice of category.
Criticism / Poetic language.
Hermann Hesse once wrote, “Words do not express thoughts very well. They always become a little different immediately after they are expressed, a little distorted, a little foolish.” In this respect, no emotion is truly communicable, no thought truly understood. For we cannot translate true anger into words; nor can words, as the old adage goes, express how much one loves another.
But from this belief springs the very idea of poetry. A visceral, pure form of communication, unhindered by the bonds of grammar or syntax, is truly the goal of any poet. Ask one sometime—he will tell you that he writes in order to express emotion! A poet arises out of someone dissatisfied with words, a person awakened to and aware of the fact that words are falsehoods, they are deceitful in their very nature.
In this light, the only “universal” language is the language of poetry. And yet, poetry itself has been tainted by human language. Petrarch’s passion, exposed in his flowing sonnets, is lost upon English readers; the lugubrious nature of Baudelaire’s lyrics is completely indiscernible to a foreign eye. And still, translations are not enough.
Every poet has attempted to break this barrier. Some have gone so far as to “modernize” poetry into images. These so-called “haikus” do not, however, move us any closer to the poetic revolution which we are awaiting. Their complete abstraction and inane meanings turn them almost into childish riddles in which repetition, palindrome, color, and simple word play become the forefront of the poetic definition.
There is a fine line between the metered rhymes which poetry is expected to be and the meaningless “haikus” which poetry has become, a line which, when followed properly, will give way to a much more intelligible and universal poem.
The best poetry is somewhere along this line. When written in this manner—not in any attempt at pedantic rhyme or abstract, “deep” meaning—poetry itself is revolutionary. Rilke, Neruda, Lorca—none follow any specific structure nor depend upon any rhyme scheme. Yet their verses are among some of the most beautiful, because in their purity, away from structure and away from randomness, they achieve a style all their own. This style gives way oftentimes to inadvertent rhyme and spontaneous meter, which in themselves are perfect, honest, and organic. And because no thought need be given to forcing these rhymes or straining for some arcane meaning, they are true to the human conscience. They are the closest expressions of the universal language that we have.
This is why I write. I strive to keep my pen along this line and by doing so I feel that I have done better than many poets who feign talent by being able to rhyme well or fit words into a formula. Anyone can count syllables, and anyone can use a rhyming dictionary. But it takes a true poet to be able to express the psyche without depending on these shallow devices.
You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.
Reviews
Sort Reviews by Newest | Oldest | Highest Quality | Lowest Quality | Newest Comments |
gdbrown reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100% of the Item
This 298 word review has not been unlocked.
jdgosslee reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100% of the Item
I agree with you on the digression of modern poetry and the reliance of metrical tools in poetry, though I wrote formal poetry almost as rule.
You use employed an extended vocabulary, did you use a thesaurus to find the words “lugubrious, (and/or)palindrome?” Just curious. A true poet as well does not have to say they are a poet, but may if they choose, and would be successful in using shallow devices in their works as well the long list of other poetic tools.
I think the piece is well written, but depends to much on the word “I”, something that always causes a critical analysis to force the reader to identify, which many readers to do not like, using “I” also points the meaning of statements towards the writer and away from the subject. With some revision I think this might stand on its own.
- add/view comments (1)
Catastrophe reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100% of the Item
Interesting. I expected to find a critique of the attitudes of modern “poets”, and found a critique of anyone that claims to be a poet.
It comes off as being a bit snobbish, don’t you think?
However, I did enjoy the examples you mentioned. I felt they were well-chosen. And I didn’t find any mechanical errors, so that was refreshing.
I’ll close with one of my favorite quotes: “The first man to compare a woman to a rose was a poet. The second to do so was, quite possibly, an idiot.” -Dali
Misticism reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100% of the Item
Ughhh.. It is very difficult to critique this piece without turning it into a counter point, but I will try.
This seems to be a well-written essay by a fluent writer with a broad knowledge of what is poetry. You did some research and supplied an impressive quote and threw around some nice recognition for several dead poets.
Okay I tried. It didn’t work.
Poetry is art in which words are the palet and emotions are the paint. The art may take form in any way, shape or pattern that the artist feels compelled to follow. You’re criticism read more as an opinion of what you prefer than a critique of other poetic art forms. It was engaging and challenging to me because I particularly enjoy the lyricism, rhythmic patterns and especially the rhyming of peotry. I enjoyed the read enough to take the time to comment on this piece or else I’d have skipped it. Please accept this as a compliment to your skills as a writer.
Showing 1 - 4 of 4
Review item
Add to favesCreator
Relevant Links
Item Stats
GENERAL
4 Reviews 3 Comments
Version 1
Latest Activity: 5 months ago
REVIEW QUEUE
Appeared in Queue: 17 Times
Skipped: 2 Times
Ratings & Rankings
