An Award winning poem by Mark Worger

Welcome Worgs,


We always enjoy a new read.

The only above comment worth saving is backgroundbob's.

This is too politically motivated for me to empathize with you. Subtlety is the best way to the heart of political music. Forget the rhyme scheme, drop the explicit "show and tell" game, and try again.

Finally, we ask that for every poem you post, that you at least try to review two pieces. So far you have posted five poems and, to wit, not reviewed any. Sometimes, it is impossible to do, but realize that YWS is a very busy website, and it is impossible for any select group of people to keep up with all the posts; we therefore ask that you do your part by reviewing what you can.


All the best,
Brad

Deleted

I think this was fantastic,
also the rhyming worked well.
Well done!
Would like to see more of ur works.

And also Welcome to Yws.

I was about to read this, but then stopped.

You can't toute it as an awaard winning poem and not reveal to us the award.

I loved the last poem I read of yours, and would like to read this one. Please tell which award you won.



-slick

An interesting poem, worgs, though I can't really agree totally with the previous comments.

Anyway, that's beside the point, on to the poem itself; technical issues to begin with.

Rhythm: your rhythm is a case of 'almost made it' - in the first verse, for example, you start off well, with the first three lines hitting in at 12 syllables, good standard poetic form. Suddenly, however, the last line is 15 syllables, throwing the rhythm totally out - why?
Much of the same is found throughout the poem; stanza three, for example, has four lines of 10, 8, 9 and 9 syllables respectively - when reading it out loud (or in your head, for that matter) it sounds completely off-kilter, since you don't have a regular rhythm going.
One final example, the last verse: 12, 11, 7 and 11 syllables just makes for an odd mix. You've really got to polish up and standardise those lengths if you want it to flow well like good poetry should.

Meter: all that about rhythm wouldn't be quite so bad, but your meter is way off as well. Just in case you're new to the concept, the word 'meter' is used to describe how poetry sounds, and more specifically where the stresses fall when read aloud. For example, when read out loud:

"i walked along the empty sands and wept."

has stresses that fall on the highlighted syllables:

"i WALKED a-LONG the EMP-ty SANDS and WEPT."

In poetry, this is very common - poems written with all lines this way are said be written in Iambic pentameter, because the stress falls every other syllable. If you note, such a meter gives a very flowing and beautifully smooth feel to the poem - one of the most famous examples is Shakespeare's "Sonnet XVIII":

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
etc.

There are other meters, of course, that make a poem full of energy or slow and subtle, but a good poem needs a regular meter of some sort; yours never really gets there. The third verse, for example, has a meter something like this:

It MAKEs me SICK when I hear STOR-ies TOLD,
Of how MEN were ONCE BOUGHT and SOLD,
Of how the WEAK were de-CI-ded DEAD,
And THROWN in-to the DEEP O-cean RED.

As you can see, your meter is all over the place - it starts off quite well, with a line of Iambic Pentameter, but then degenerates into a mess, mainly because you haven't chosen words specifically to flow well. While I understand the impulse to try and put down exactly what you're trying to say, you have to remember that you're writing poetry, not a history book or a brochure, and the technique and style are just as important as the text.
Meter is one of the most difficult parts of poetry to understand and work with, so don't be frustrated if it doesn't come naturally. The best thing you can do is read as much professional poetry as you can, and read it out loud: get a feel for how it rolls of your tongue, and where the natural stresses fall.

Rhyme: like the first point, this is another "nearly-but-no-cigar" issue. My personal feeling is always that rhyme is seriously overrated, not because it doesn't add to a poem, but because it's so hard to use without making a poem set your teeth on edge. People seem to automatically assume that rhyme makes a poem better: not so - rhyme done in the way I so often see it just makes poetry look like it was written by children.
Usually, this is because such poetry relies heavily on 'absolute' rhymes - examples from your piece are instances like "told/sold", "dead/red" or "can/am". Be aware, they add very little to your poem - rhyme is meant to draw attention to certain places in the poem, but it's NOT meant to simply make the reader thing "oh, look, they've rhymed", it's meant to make them think "I wonder what the connection is between those two rhyming words."
In aid of this, what you want to try for more than anything in rhyming poetry are discreet rhymes, half-rhymes and above all, rhymes that don't jarr your brain. A piece full of absolutes like the ones outlined above just makes a poem that reads like:

"There is a cat
sat on a mat,
his blood is red
for he is dead."

Ineffective! You're getting to something better where you rhyme words like "bureaucracy/slavery", but there just isn't enough - connections like "despair/mortar", "denied/obliged" or "defeat/belief" are ones you're looking for. It's obvious that there's that connection there, but it's quiet enough to allow the poem to flow without disrupting it purely for the sake of rhyme. Remember, when you're trying to make a rhyming piece flow, subtlety is an absolute must!
One final note on rhyme - don't limit yourself to couplets! Just like absolute rhymes, they are so overused in poetry that it's hard to write them without making them sound old and tired. Broaden your horizons - instead of your couplets, which are "AABB" in rhyme, write ones that are "ABAB", like "To Anthea, Who May Command Him Any Thing" by Robert Herrick

Bid me to weep, and I will weep,
While I have eyes to see;
And having none, yet I will keep
A heart to weep for thee.

or "ABBA", like John Milton's "On His Being Arrived to the Age of Twenty-Three

How soon hath Time, the subtle thief of youth,
Stolen on his wing my three and twentieth year!
My hasting days fly on with full career,
But my late spring no bud or blossom shew'th.

You don't even have to rhyme at the end of the line; take Edgar Allen Poe's famous poem, "The Raven", for example:

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.

Here, Poe uses Internal rhyme to add style to the poem.
Basically, be careful of using rhyme that is too simple and too obvious - it just takes away from the message and technique of the poem as a whole.

That conclued the technical side of things. Onward, to the content!

I liked your theme. So often, poetry falls down because it's simply angst or another default moan about this relationship or that breakup, but here you've captured something that I think needs talking about. The changing attitudes toward discrimination, and the effective reversal of how we see things - the 'demonisation of white culture' or 'playing the race card' are all issues that don't get much airtime, largely because they aren't considered PC. Good for you on choosing it as a subject.

In general, I quite liked the balance of imagery, too - very dramatic, which suits the subject matter, and it almost felt like it had a Carribean feel to it, judging from some of the post-slavery poetry I've seen, which makes for an interesting mix.

Overall, your idea is excellent, but not bourne out by the technique - considering you've got the inspiration (something many qualified and technically excellent poets would give their eyeteeth for a spoonful of...), it's almost a crime not to have the framework to effectively shape it in. I'd recommend you seriously look into redrafting this poem with better rhythm, meter and rhyme, because you're looking at an important topic that's well expressed - it just isn't good poetry yet. Do keep at it; it deserves it.

Hope this helps you, I'll look forward to seeing more of your work, and hopefully another version of this one.

Thanks for the feedback. It’s very impressive – the analysis is spot on. Though I feel you have not gone far enough in one crucial area – which is more my fault as the writer than yours as a reader. Before I begin a rather weak defence I should add that I wrote this four years ago and didn’t bother re-writing it because what I tried to pull-off didn’t work. Some works are worth editing and re-drafting and with some it’s better to cut your losses!

So to my defence, if you will.

You say, “You start off well, with the first three lines hitting in at 12 syllables, good standard poetic form. Suddenly, however, the last line is 15 syllables, throwing the rhythm totally out - why?” You go onto say, ”You've really got to polish up and standardise those lengths if you want it to flow well like good poetry should”. You later add, “Your meter is all over the place - it starts off quite well, with a line of Iambic Pentameter, but then degenerates into a mess, mainly because you haven't chosen words specifically to flow well.” I’d like to draw attention to parts of your critical summation, which I have underlined. The key question, as you yourself point out, is “why?”. What is it about a poem about slavery, that starts off “well” as you put it (though I’d like to stress I’m not a fan of that terminology) and that uses rhyming couplets throughout – a poem that gives the façade, perhaps, of “good poetry” but that “degenerates into a mess”?

First we have an idea of good poetry, which we can’t help but be influenced by when we read a text. Good poetry is based upon the conventions of the genre. A good poem should comply with these conventions, in meter, rhyme, rhythm and so on. A good poem should “flow”. To that end you suggest further reading of professional poets – good poets. A poem’s objective value – in terms of what is good and bad – is based upon these conventions. This is undeniable for you have made a critical reading through these conventions. So, a poem’s value is entirely constrained, enslaved if you will, by the conventions of the genre and ideals of good poetry. A poem that willingly accepts these constraints and conforms to all of them is enslaved physically (that is, aesthetically) and internally.

My poem, however, doesn't conform, it "just isn't good poetry" as you say. I haven’t chosen words that flow. It wears some aesthetic chains – rhyming couplets, dabbling in Iambic pentameter – but internally wills not to be subjected to the demands of the genre; not to be trapped by a conventional “framework”. Physically it is enslaved, and your criticism has manifested the point, but internally it is free. I hope it is clear where I am going with this. That the flaws you have pointed out are central the poems theme about being enslaved, both for the traditional (excuse the clumsy terminology) Negro and the contemporary slave of sorts that the poem is about. I can spell it out further, but don’t want to patronise anyone.

Be careful about approaching a text with formulaic ideas about ‘good poetry’. It’s like looking at a wide piece of scenery – be it mountains, the horizon or whatever you like – through a spyhole. That’s not to say that your ideas a wrong, but just make sure you have thought about them yourself without letting conventions of genre influence you too heavily. And, of course, be aware that other writers and readers may not share your beliefs about the art. There are examples throughout history of poets subverting rules and conventions. Indeed so much so that they create new conventions that once again need innovation to break them. That’s why poetry is so interesting – it’s in a constant state of flux (don’t tell the Ancient Greeks!). Again though, this is just my opinion, and not a necessarily good one and one I am sure to drop and pick up again several times as a writer.

Having said all that and taking too long to do so, the fact that what I tried to do in this poem is not obvious – that when you asked “why?” the answer was not forthcoming - is one of the reasons this poem fails so miserably! It has subsequently been binned. I am glad it provoked some critical debate though…

Best,

Mark

Nice to have feedback on feedback, as t'were; couple of thoughts:

I've heard this defense used before: it's actually a very common one. People like to think that because it 'breaks the rules' and starts or attempts to be something new, it makes it effective and good. It doesn't usually work like that, unfortunately.

What you have to remember are a couple of things: firstly why we write poetry and secondly how we write it.
There are a lot of answers to the first question, but as usual, they can be boiled down to something quite simple: the aim of writing is to connect with us and therefore make us think something. Whether that 'thing' is inspirational, educational, admonitory or anything else is beside the point: if it doesn't provoke a thought it is worthless, and if it doesn't connect then it provokes nothing.
Based on this, then, the how becomes much clearer: since the idea or the 'inspiration' of the poem is the idea we hope to transmit, the technique and form of the poem are the method of that transmission - the 'mask over the indescribable', as Heaney put it. How the poem is written, therefore, determines how well it connects with people.

Understand, then, that there is a reason for convention - it works. When a person reads The Destruction of Sennacherib by Byron,

The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.

the reason they get a chill down their spine and an image of battle is hugely to do with the meter: it's written in Anapestic Tetrameter, which gives a rolling, driving feel that is suited perfectly to a galloping war poem. In the same way, Drayton's Since There's No Help, Come Let Us Kiss and Part

Since there's no help, come let us kiss and part,—
Nay I have done, you get no more of me;
And I am glad, yea, glad with all my heart,
That thus so cleanly I myself can free.

is so effective - as many sonnets are - because Iambic Pentameter is so conversational, so intimate: perfect for love poems and deep confessions.

I'm using meter as the key example, but the line of thought pertains to all literary conventions: a massive amount of poetic form and structure is psychological, and acts directly on the mind (both conscious and largely unconscious). John Guthrie's work into the psychology of poetry highlights the key issue - while as writers it is important not to always repeat the old, if conventions are not observed then the reader has no basis on which to grasp the work, and so does not connect with it.

Basically - remember that while your idea is laudable, it simply doesn't work. Poetry is all about connection, and because that is largely on an unconscious basis, conventions like typical structure, meter and rhyme schemes are vitally important. It's not about preconceptions of 'good' or 'bad' poetry, it's about what works to connect with people, and both the literary and the psychological evidence indicates that the best poetry (and other writing, of course) isn't that which defies convention, but that which works within it in new ways.

In effect, nice try: but trying to make point about 'unconstrained poetry' through losing the points that connect the reader to the poem isn't a very good way to go - you just end up with a poem that relies entirely on its words; it might as well be a brochure.

I certainly appreciate that breaking the conventions doesn’t work necessarily. Like I said my attempt doesn’t work and was binned four years ago! Without conventions at all anything would pass as poetry – or even good poetry. My point is not about unconstrained poetry, but that to be good, poetry doesn’t have to stick to the rules. Let’s get away from my piece - we both know it fails on a number of levels. More generally unconstrained poetry is not about doing what you want - not unless you are writing a diary that is never intended for anybody else’s eyes other than your own. Rather it is about writing in a certain way for a reason – as such unconstrained is, perhaps, a little misleading. In breaking conventions one is still engaging with them, just not complying.

What seems crucial to me is the ability first to write to conventions and then to break them: so that, say, the unintentional freedom expressed in the writing of a ten year is not considered innovative genius. Though perhaps a number of formalist critics would disagree. Four years ago I couldn’t do this, and maybe when it comes to poetry I still struggle – in fact I definitely still struggle. The fact that I rely to heavily on words and ideas is probably why I am far more successful in prose fiction.

In essence I agree with nearly all of what you say above. However, I am unconvinced about one of your basic arguments. I still have an issue with ‘good’ and ‘bad’ poetry. These are dangerous terms that you seem now to be distancing yourself from but that were fundamental to your original analysis. If you are saying it’s all about connecting with the reader, being good and bad or whatever is relative – that is, relative according to the response of the reader. The question then, is who is the reader? How do we measure response?

First, to make your argument about conventions and how they work, you have to assume that the reader is familiar with those conventions. This is a big assumption to make and begs the question ‘who do we write for?’. Case in point, Ani above, is not familiar with the conventions of poetry, as indeed you are. She connects with the poem as it stands. A poem steeped in convention may in fact complicate the connection between text and the uninformed reader (the reception of most teens to Shakespeare in school seems a good example).

The logical step in your argument would then be that an uninformed readers are less important (again excuse the clumsy lexis) than informed readers. Or, more controversially, that there is an objective ideal of what will and will not connect with a worthy reader. Now we really are in dangerous territory.

In short – too short in fact – connecting with a reader does not demand compliance to convention. The only way it does is if you have a preconception of the worthy reader.

In this instance, of course, I am sharing my work with other writers who should be expected to be familiar with the conventions. Not complying to convention does more to prevent a connection between reader and text than create one. This is by-the-by; my poem does not work and is not the point of this response. Neither is it the point to disagree with what you are saying about convention and that it works. What I am trying to show is that the premises of your argument as it stands, do not quite suffice to make your conclusion absolute.

Reader connection on it’s own does not demand compliance to convention. Which means either 1. Good poetry does not demand compliance to convention; or 2. Good poetry is not (only) connection with the reader. This is not necessarily my view you understand, but the logical development of your own argument as detailed above.

A final example: RaP (Rhythm and Poetry).
In terms of reader connection, numbers and whatever else, rhythm and poetry is arguably the most successful form of poetry over the last thirty years. Needless to say RaP does not conform to traditional poetic conventions; it barely engages with them at all. If we assess RaP in terms of reader connection, we must consider it good, or even the best, poetry. Yet it does not conform to convention.

What does this mean? We could say RaP is not poetry, but the current post-colonial movement in North London is starting to make strong arguments against that case. We could say true, RaP is the best form of poetry and we are both misguided about convention and whatever else. Or we could say that your summation of the relationship between good poetry, convention and connection with the reader, is not quite right.

Nothing like a good old critical debate – cheers. Mark

I think I am going to like you worgs.

You got enough blah blah blah in your posts to actually stand toe to toe with bob.

I aint got the time to declare an official winner in this 'round 1' (that would entail too much reading) so by default, and cuz your a newbie, and cuz this is your thread,

*SlickJimmy says worgs is the blah blah blah post winner today* HOORAY FOR WORGS.

haha, jk way to stick up for yourself.

blah blah blah - comes witha full time job huh? Anything to get out of doing actual work. Plus I had to much beer last night and can't quite differentiate between pub talk such as above and stuff that is actually interesting. Such is life.

teeheehee

Guys,


Let's try to keep this on topic. Thanks.




Worgs,


I am going to respond here to your PM, since this is a more suitable place for discussions of attempts at political poetry.

The British form of political poetry certainly doesn't always invovle subtlety--however, I have never heard of a "trend" to not be subtle. From my own studies, I am certain subtlety has never been totally removed, dropped as an intellectual form of expression.

While it may be true that in recent times British poetry has lost its subtlety, it is at least riddled with humor. This lacks both. I agree with backgroundbob that scansion, if you're unwilling to include either subtlety or humor, is the way to go.


Best of luck,
Brad

Worgs,

I understand your unwillingness to shove 'good' and 'bad' poetry into boxes, but I'd have to disagree - there's an increasingly disturbing trend toward postmodernism in poetry, the belief that 'anything is art', that everyone's opinion is equally valid simply on the strength of it being their individual belief.
Sadly, I'm not of the school that all are equal in all things - just as a blind faith is worse than an informed faith, blind approval is worse than informed approval.

Your two case-in-points, for example: ANI likes your poem, but why? Has she honestly connected with it? Is there any indication from her post that she has gained anything from the poem, or merely that it was a curiousity based on some interesting words that will soon be forgotten? The problem is that such 'approval' isn't worth the pixels it's written in, because there's no rational, no understanding and likely no permanance.

As for rap, I'd absolutely consider it poetry, but there's no way it can be considered to break poetic conventions - just as good poetry is, the best rap is stringently metered, intelligently rhymed and properly structured. The *reason* it is so effective is because of exactly the things I have been talking about - by making the underlying psychological connections that draw the mind into focusing on what is being said. Meter, rhyme, structure - all are present in rap, and they are what connects a person to the medium; the language is merely the peripheral, the idea - the technique is what makes it effective. Imagine if I stood up and said exactly the same words as a rapper, but without the beat, without the flow; it would be absolutely useless.

Finally, don't forget that informed readers have a more intelligent and yes, 'better' view of poetry because they are able to read it properly - to someone who has no idea how to draw out the rhythm and structure, it might as well just be a blank paragraph of text. It loses everything that makes it poetic, all its power. So, yes, there is a 'worthy reader' and there is an 'ideal' - just as a person who cannot read will not gain any of the psychological benefits of poetry, so it is with someone who cannot read well and cannot read poetically. Read it out loud to them, however, and the power is shown in the better writing, and not the other - read an unconventional, unstructured poem aloud with a traditional, structured one, and the power is obvious. This is why 'beat poetry' is one of the most powerful forms today, because it captures absolute power through rigid and effective use of meter and form.

The point still stands that there is a reason why even modern and progressive forms of poetry stick to conventional means in most cases: because it works. Because beat poetry and rap connect with people through their form and structure equally as much as their words, and these are still very traditional understandings of meter. The reason you will see precious little badly metered poetry in circulation is because no-one cares about it; no-one wants to hear it.

Psychological cues rule the poetic world, and the kind of poetry your defense is proposing just doesn't hit any of them. That's why it won't work - that's why it's 'bad' poetry.

Bob, man. I'm going to leave this one here because we fundamentally disagree. I feel your view represents the classist regime that dominates literary criticism in this country. Now you're making judgements about whether other people 'really connect' with poetry. An empiricist, and the romantics, even Keats in his early days, would say people less informed have a more honest and fundamental connection - same goes for a brand of post-structuralism - the concepts of analysis distance ourself further from reality. We cannot say that only informed people connect better with poetry. It's just plain wrong. Also, these people who 'don't really connect' are the majority of the commercial market. So approval from them does matter.

"There's no way it [rap] can be considered to break poetic conventions." Again I fundamentally disagree with you here. Yeah of course it has meter and rhythm, but rarely is the meter standard (at least in the London based RaP I'm talking about) and it is certainly not traditional. Most RaP written down would not stand up to your orthodox critical anlysis.

Lastly, you misrepresent me. What is my defence proposing exactly? I agreed with you about conventions and progressive poetry in my last reply. I agree with you that my poem doesn't work. I brought you to account on your reasoning, which you have answered. Your answer is that uninformed people necessarily don't connect with poetry and that there is such a thing as an ideal reader. I fundamentally disagree with that school of thought - it's outdated, in my opinion of course.

Cheers Bob,

I feel that you people know too much. My god, you guys know how to go on. As it is, I go for Bob. He's rarely wrong. Go Bob!

As for the poem itself which seems to have been lost in the debate; its funny to see how the most elementary mistake was not corrected:

I’m a white male from a from a working class family,

I'm a white male from a [from a] working class family. Get rid of what is in the brackets. To put it simply, I liked this... Way to oversimplify, huh?