HELP WITH 'SWEENEY'...calling Joe..Manfred..Peeley

[Glenny Palmer]

What a bonza analogy Neville! Goodonyamate.

[Neville Briggs]

Rugby games and poetry are structured.

so, to practice Rugby or poetry you need to
function within a structure.

Therefore;

To function as a practitioner in Rugby or poetry
you need to know the structure.

[Dave Smith]

Intellectual people have a way of making the simple things in life complicated. If you can present poetry in a way that other people understand and enjoy it does not need to be complex.
But if you want to write it so other people can perform it then you must have it correct.
Easy hey.

Rugby; You run flat out till somebody tips you over then the other side does it. No poetry in that.

TTFN

[Peely]

G'day All

In my case, I studied metric structure to help myself gain a better understanding so that I could improve my own writing. All of the examples quoted were ones that I had noticed during the time that I was learning.

Not long after I started performing my work, I was informed by someone that Paterson's metre was perfect. After being informed that the metre in some of my own poems was not, I was determined to find out just how close to perfect some of these earlier poets were. After learning more about the types of metre, I analysed bits and pieces of poems to see if there were any variations and if the patterns were carried through. Early on, I picked up differences by counting syllables (it's rare that I need to do this now). Some of these variations carried through into other stanzas (as is often quoted as a necessary by some judges) and many did not.

It all comes down to how you look at the consistency of the piece. In all of the examples quoted in my earlier posts, the number and patterning of the stressed syllables (eg MFSR each stanza is 7, 5, 7, 5, 7, 5, 7, 5) is consistent in each poem. Small variations in metre (or the combinations of feet used, to use slightly different words) allow the poem to break from being monotonous. The trick is in knowing how much variation can be used without destroying the basic sound-line of the whole poem.

If you are going to play with mixing of metres, anapestic and iambic metres will blend. As will dactyllic and trochaic. If you are going to try this you need to be certain that there are no ambiguities in which stresses should be considered as your strong stresses, otherwise this technique will not work all that well (at least that is what I have found through my own experimentation).

Regards


John Peel

[Glenny Palmer]

...
Goodness me.

How much 'enjoyment' does a reader glean from having to go back & read a line twice + + to try to pick up the 'flow' of the poetry? We should not expect our readers to have to work at grasping the poem....& I promise you, they won't! (work at it.) They will simply toss it aside & pick up a 'master's' poem, that is pretty well guaranteed to deliver what they were seeking...enjoyment. Because the 'master' cared enough (& was committed enough) to employ some structural basics.

Keats, you cheeky blighter. I have always shied away from referring to 'guidelines' as 'rules.' I do not, & never have, professed to be a 'specialist' in this field. I was fortunate enough to have some highly skilled poets instruct me in the early days. I took that instruction to be a special gift, & honoured their efforts made for me, by employing it to try to produce poems worthy of being called 'enjoyable'. Hoping to deliver a similar gift to others I simply pass on what level of knowledge I do have, & find that in doing so I continue to learn also. I deliberately kept my tutorial as basic as possible, because I well recall how bewildering some of the more hifalutin' terms were to me, when I was a newbie. I also point out in my little instructional effort, that each poet's aim will be different, & is as valid as any other person's, & that at all costs to not lose the enjoyment of pursuing one's craft.

I try to convey to those who seem threatened by 'rules' that I believe those 'rules' were not originally devised by some pencil head academic, but were discovered around the campfire. Why was Bill's poem so enjoyable to hear, while Fred's was very ho hum? Upon investigation of the 2 poems it would have revealed that Bill's poem had a structure, albeit naturally, & Fred's didn't. So why not employ Bill's structure as a future 'guideline'?

For some curious reason, in nearly every writing workshop I have conducted, some individual has paid his participation fee to only argue the toss about 'rules', & to avidly pursue trying to discredit my instruction. I have yet to see any one of these 'poets' progress to any degree. After all the time & sincere effort I contribute to aiding an individual's particular desire for his/her work, it does become tiresome.....
It seems to me that the minefield of discussing politics or religion now has expanded to poetry as well. What a shame.

BTW Keats....whatever became of that poem you asked me to help you with, when you were still lurking on here incognito...the one about the Eureka Stockade? I was so impressed with your 'natural' skill level that I had such high hopes for you & for that poem.

Seeyas
Glenny

[Neville Briggs]

Some excellent points there Glenny. I should tell the folks that following your tutorial last year at Singleton, the members got a lot of enthusiasm after being enlightened on some of the structural issues, and I point out that some our Singleton members have been doing quite well this year in the comps.

Except me, I'm always hopeless at comps.

[David Campbell]

Well said, Glenny. After all, as C. J. Dennis’s Bloke might have observed (with tongue firmly planted in cheek):

I reckon yer could yak till
a week past kingdom come,
I’d never get this dactyl…
it makes me brain go numb.

And anapest’s a ripper,
a flamin’ bloody hoot…
I’d like ter sink the slipper
an’ give that lot the boot!

Iambic bloomin’ wotsits
are flyin’ left an’ right…
’oo are these ruddy clots it’s
supposed ter quite delight?

Alliteration, metre,
and assonance and rhyme,
all make me yell “Excreta!
Why should I waste me time?”

That onomatopoeia
just gives me lots of stress…
ain’t got the buccaneer
fer that fussbudget mess.

So give me stuff that’s written
ter make me shout HOORAY,
an’ I’ll be bloody smitten
until me dyin’ day.

Cheers
David

[David J Delaney]

Hahahaha!!..love it David, & Glenny, you will always be my heroine.

[Glenny Palmer]

Neville!! 'Except me, I'm always hopeless at comps.' SMACK!!
Thanks for your kind words Nev. I was stoked to see how well the Singos did at Harrington, & also I've seen them popping up elsewhere too. Good stuff.

Oh Dave, how lovely to be a heroine...especially yours.

Mr Campbell, did you write that piece? (pardon my ignorance, or rather inebriance (?) (I'm on my 3rd glass of Stoney's Green Ginger wine. Heavy duty, eh?) It's a cracker.
Many thanks
Glenny

[Stephen Whiteside]

I think you might be missing the point a bit here. Lawson was not a natural rhyming poet. Paterson and Dennis were, but Lawson wasn't. Lawson's natural talent was writing short stories. He wasn't a novelist, either, but he wrote superlative short stories. He really only wrote rhyming verse because everybody else was, and he wanted to get on the bandwagon. I wrote an article several years ago comparing Dennis with Paterson and Lawson (poetry only). Dennis is the master. Paterson stood up pretty well, but Lawson's poetry is all over the place like a dog's breakfast. Not just this poem, all of them. Well, most of them anyway.

Of course, that doesn't mean Lawson didn't write great poems. He did. They were filled with passion, and empathy for the underdog, and fascinating historic detail. That's why tunes have been written for so many of them, and they're sung now as songs.

I suspect also that we are much stricter in terms of our rules and regulations now than they were back then. Don't forget, Lawson only had about three years of formal schooling. He couldn't spell for nuts. (Example: He spelt fool 'fule'.) Many years later, he studied for and sat his Yr 12 equivalent. He failed.

They were all pretty much instinctive in their writing back then - certainly Lawson was. Dennis was an exception. He was pretty well educated, and had probably also done a lot of private study. It is clear from his writing that he had a very deep grasp of the history of and the rules relating to poetry.

If you want to show a 'newbie' a bush poetry master (at least, from a technical point of view), don't show them Henry Lawson!