POETRY: Another Definition For The Books

POETRY: Another Definition For The Books

A Story by kublakhan27
"

Written for school about 12 years ago when I was told to write an editorial-style piece on (drumroll) the definition of poetry. Got an A but I don't think I could pull off something like this now...

"
"A poet is a liar who always speaks the truth" - Jean Cocteau

          I believe I have a general sense of what this quote means, but like any definition of a poet or poetry in general that I happen to come across, I spend little time dwelling on it.  It has become too confusing and time-consuming for me to contemplate every single definition of poetry I hear or read, and then compare it to those that have already been uttered.  The number of differing definitions appears to be almost infinite.

          I have heard several poets stress the importance of emotion in poetry.  I have also heard T.S. Eliot declare poetry to be an escape from emotion.  I have heard some poets proclaim that it does not have to say anything significant at all.  I have heard so many varying interpretations of poetry that I can no longer recall the names of any of the poets who made the aforementioned claims.  For whatever reason, the only name that has stuck with me is Eliot.

          I suspect this is because it is one of the definitions I am the most uncomfortable with, in spite of the fact that I admire some of his work very much.  Poetry to me has always been about emotion, and has always struck me as the ultimate literature of emotion and expressing emotion.  Poetry to me seems to be more about emotion and instinct than description and reason.  But I will be the first to admit that I have no intellectual means of defending that position as a valid one (just like I have no intellectual means of justifying a yet-to-even-graduate English student locking horns with one of the grandmasters of poetry on the meaning of poetry).

          What I would like to do here is say that poetry is whatever you want it to be, because I feel that is what it is.  Look at all the differing viewpoints out there.  Everyone certainly seems to have his or her own custom-made definition of poetry.  But this is more of a generalization than a definition.  I feel the need to factor literature into the equation somewhere; and even though I would rather focus on the emotional element than the literary element, I feel pretty confident that my definition will not be seriously considered until literature is mentioned in there somewhere.

          So, as far as literature goes, I do believe that poetry is the only form of literature that is in a constant state of evolution.  All the other forms of literature that come to my mind involve fairly rigid structures and rules.  The rules of poetry - if there are any at all - are quite abstract.  They change through time, and are interpreted in different ways through time.  The function of poetry changes through time as well.  It started out as a kind of interaction with the gods.  Poets like Homer seemed to serve as the immortals' messengers on earth.  In another age, poetry was the literature of the upper class; the only literature considered morally suitable to read.  These days, everyone seems to be writing poetry: everyone from teachers to lawyers to housewives to grandparents (I am tempted to thank Wordsworth for this).  Conduct a net search on "poetry" to see the proof of that.  Every possible group one can think of contains some poets, be they amateur or professional or intellectual or whatever.  But the intelligence factor is not the point here.  The point is that more people are writing poetry these days than ever.  Something with such broad appeal cannot be possibly be tied down by one all-encompassing definition.  The definition has to be flexible, not individualistic.

          How does one go about separating poetry from prose?  It is a very odd and intriguing question, and a seemingly easy question to answer until one actually attempts it.  The most obvious distinction between the two literary forms is in the justification of lines.  The general, unwritten rule is that, if the line does not go all the way across the page, then it is poetry.  But there has to be more to it than that.  There is a reason why the lines of poetry do not go all the way across the page.

          No doubt rhythm has something to do with it.  It is still a very significant component of poetry, probably more so than rhyme judging by the general shift towards free verse in contemporary poetry.  But whether there is rhyme or not, there always seems to be the need for some kind of rhythmic flow, and rhythmic flow will naturally dictate the form and structure or a poem.  Perhaps this is due to the connection that many of us make between poetry and music.  Of course, the two artistic spheres have been related to each other like the chicken and the egg for centuries now, as the earliest poetry was indeed recited to music.  I find it interesting as well, that a lot of our current musical acts (Counting Crows, The Tragically Hip, etc.) write and sing many of their lyrics as monologues, with little or no rhyme.  The two art forms have always seemed to influence each other in a kind of cyclical way.

          But a lot of our most recent music (with the exception of bands aforementioned!) is not very sympathetic to interpretation, is it?  This is where poetry starts to break away from music and all the other forms of literature.  I am hesitant to say that poetry should be "layered" in terms of meaning, because I have read a fair amount of poetry that did not necessarily carry any underlying meaning, but still managed to have enough of the generally understood components of poetry to be called a poem (love poems are the example that springs to my mind the quickest).  However, there should be some room for interpretation.  Interpretation and layered meaning are not inseparable counterparts in my mind.  A poem with one clearly defined message or meaning can still be interpretative as long as it evokes some kind of component that people can "relate" to.  To me, this is what interpretation - in poetry, at least - is about: being able to "relate" to something you read or heard in the poem.  Interpretation is a wholly personal thing, and it does not necessarily have to imply the derivation of meanings.  It should be able to imply the derivation of emotions and memories and recollections as well.

          Yet, needless to say, a prominent facet of poetry is that much of it will contain various meanings, and this is where the faithful standbys - metaphors, allegory, symbolism, and so on - come into play.  These devices, particularly the metaphor, are usually used to attach a host of meanings or messages to the language of the poem.  Most of my ideas so far have been pretty subjective, but I think this is one area where most people would agree with me, so no personal drivel is required in this paragraph.

          I believe that covers all the various sentiments I have towards poetry, so I will now attempt to tie it all together with a working definition, another definition to go into that seamless filing cabinet.  Here goes : Poetry is a unique, emotion-based form of literature, with a particular emphasis on rhythm, and a rich interpretative component that manifests itself through many means, including the use of poetic devices (metaphors, symbolism, imagery, etc.) and the presentation of predicaments and voices that encourage the reader to establish personal connections.

          If the lengthy, rollicking, self-indulgent sounding preamble to this definition was unnecessary, I apologize.  Yet due to my long-standing hesitation to offer a concrete definition of poetry, I really had to think about the ways in which I viewed poetry and what I personally expected from it.  The best way for me to do these things was to write it out as I went along.  It is not that I have never thought about poetry in such depth before.  I have done so frequently, but could never force myself to sit down and write it out in a remotely reasonable manner.  Now that I have finally done it, I have developed the belief that everyone who is serious and passionate about poetry is compelled to define it at some point in his or her life.  If they are really ambitious about it - or just chronic wishful thinkers - they will hope to see it alongside Eliot's quote not long after graduating from university.

Steven Fortune

© 2012 kublakhan27


My Review

Would you like to review this Story?
Login | Register




Share This
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Request Read Request
Add to Library My Library
Subscribe Subscribe


Stats

144 Views
Added on July 20, 2012
Last Updated on July 26, 2012
Tags: essay, poetry, definition, prose

Author

kublakhan27
kublakhan27

Nova Scotia, Canada



About
My first book is out! Any comments that anyone may have to offer regarding my work would be deeply appreciated, as I'm yet to get a review. www.amazon.com/Waltz-Around-Swirls-Steven-Fortune/dp.. more..

Writing