For me, a form with some relation to the subject matter is always ideal, but I tend to fall in love most easily with ghazal, sestina, pantoum, and villanelle. There's something empowering about well-placed repetition, like a mantra or prayer.
I've never heard of heteronyms before, they sound so interesting! The idea of writing not just under assumed names but assumed personalities must be so much fun I'm definitely going to look into Pessoa's poetry. What about heteronyms appeals to you (for example, the deliberate creation of another personality, or perhaps seeing shades of the original author in the created personality)? Do you find it differs a great deal from poetry written by poets who write as a character other than themselves, but not with the deliberate intention of creating a heteronym?
Epic poetry is a lot of fun, I really like poems that tell stories What type of heroes do you like to read (and write) about? (Do you prefer fantasy, historical, mythological, etc.?) How long of a poem would you consider a mini epic, as opposed to a true epic?
I found a few of his poems online, I especially like the way he ends some of his lines, almost tricking the reader into assuming he means one thing until you read the next line. What draws you to prose poetry? Do you find it easier to read than fixed forms, or perhaps more coherent? Does the subject matter enter into the equation?
Before I'll reply to your question, I'll have to ask you something first. Have you read prose poems by Hass? If you talk about line breaks, I'd say you've read his stuff in free verse. A prose poem is a poem written as a piece of prose, so without any linebreaks or something. Not meaning to bitch on you or something.
Hmm, there's one by him called 'A story about the body', which is incredible good. You can find it here: [link] 'My Mother's Nipples' is a longer poem of his, made up from several sections, most of them in free verse, but some sections in prose. I haven't really seen such a thing before, the change between free verse and prosepoetry in the same poem, but I thought it was great.
Quite a variety of forms that originated in other languages Do you prefer to read such poems in English or in their original languages? What about fixed form poetry attracts you (i.e., rhythm, rhyme, subject matter)? Do you look for the form first, or the subject matter first, when browsing poems to read?
I like reading all forms in both languages (original and then translated/foreign). I am very happy that we have the technology to translate poems in a second because without that, unlocking these poems would be very difficult.
To answer your question about what attracts me; mainly, the title (when on dA) but, once I click the poem I am admittedly drawn to the use of words and the flow. A poem which can easily be read does a lot to me as the reader. Next, after I have established my liking for the flow and the use of words, along with the potency, I sit upon the subject matter. Analyzing the poem on more than one front is something i enjoy doing.
Do you mean the Pascale Petit poems about Frida Kahlo's painting? I could only find a few online, but they seem almost like stream of consciousness poems written while looking at Kahlo's paintings. What drew you to that type of poetry? Were you already a Kahlo fan, or a Petit fan, or did someone recommend the poems to you?
Yeah, I love Tolkien too Which ones do you prefer, the more whimsical songs, like the ones sung by Tom Bombadil and the hobbits, or the serious historical ballads of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas? Do you have a particular favorite?
I like villanelles, ghazals, sestinas - and the minimal fixed forms; of course, haikus, but also anacreontic verse and indrisos and generally things under ten lines. Metre is hard, and I can't do it, so metre is always impressive, but I often don't realise it's there. I do love fixed form in general, though, as equally as free verse, I think it's gorgeous.
Wow, quite a range for you as well Villanellles look interesting, the only one I think I've heard is the Dylan Thomas one, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night," but I never knew what form it was. As for ghazals and haikus, do you read them in their original language or English translations? Does translation affect how you view the poem? I've never seen indrisos before (other than the one I just googled ). They seem to be a relatively recent invention; what drew you to the form? Was is solely the length, or did other factors come into play?
So I've been told! That is a lovely example, and here is another gorgeous villanelle on deviantART here. I usually read both in English, but if the ghazals are in Hindi, I'd read them - apart from that, I'm wholly illiterate in their language! And translations do definitely affect it - Hindi ghazals are very song-like and I couldn't translate them at all.
I love the length of indrisos and how you have two separate lines at the end. The structuring of the stanzas is what gets me.
Wow, thank you for sharing that villanelle, it was fantastic! I think it's impressive that you make the effort to read the ghazals in Hindi, I've tried reading poems in languages other than English and even if I have a little understanding of the language, I find it difficult to feel comfortable with it. However, I like poetic forms, so it's hard to enjoy translations that lose the rhyme scheme or rhythm in the process.
Well, if that means one is easily impressed, so am I, I suppose Since you appear to like structured poetry, what leads you to prefer one structured poem over another (apart from the quality)? Does subject matter come into play, or word style (modern versus archaic), or something else?
I always have a hard time with nonsense poetry. Do you find youself searching for meaning in nonsense poems, or are you able to take the words on the page as they are? My brain always tries to fit even nonsense poetry into a "storyline"
Good fixed form poetry is either very hard to find on dA, or perhaps I just don't care for them. But I have no bias. I'll read anything and if it captures my imagination and sings a song in my head then it's a win. The poems I enjoy almost always end up being free verse, mainly because I don't want to be aware of the form when I'm reading a poem; I like it to be invisible, so as not to distract me from the experience. For this reason, the main fixed form I like is haiku ( when it is done correctly.) It is as close to open/free verse as an established fixed form can come, because the tenets of the form are not entirely structural or aesthetic but rather in meaning and reference. But, mostly I enjoy poetry without rules.
I agree, as long as the poem hooks you, it's fun to read What makes a form "visible" to you? Is it rhyme, meter, word repetition, etc., that makes certain forms distracting? What language do you read haiku in (translated or original)?
Obvious poetic techniques such as repetitive rhyme schemes and metrically identical stanzas can pull me away from the imagery, just like cliche and trite diction can overwhelm an elegant structure. I guess I look for balance in a poem, such that it appears to happen inside my own mind's eye and ear and does not present contrivances and pretentious poetic devices that must be overcome in order to enjoy the experience. You can accomplish this with a fixed form, but it's that much more difficult. I do respect people who can pull it off.
I like limericks too, they're fun to read Do you read Senryu in the orignal Japanese, or translated, or ones originally in English? Do you find that translated works capture the essence of the Senryu poems, especially considering how short Senryu are?
I read in Japanese and Translated. I've never read English Senryu. If a Senryu is well translated, I have no issue with it. I actually like it more because I have a better understanding of English than Japanese. Reading Japanese poetry is like reading a Japanese technical manual - It's beyond your average conversational Japanese.
But Senryu are all about making you laugh and then feel really bad about human society and well translated Senryu can do that.
Wow, quite a wide range Do you read ghazals and tankas that are originally in Arabic/Asian languages, or do you read English translations, or ones written originally in English? How do you feel about translations? Are they as interesting as reading the poems in their original language (is too much lost in translation)?
I read ghazals in Arabic and English, and in translation from Persian and Hindi, and prefer reading them translated into English even if they're Arabic just because it's easier for me to conceptualise the poeticness of them. I only read Tanka in English, including translated works.
I actually tend to like translated poetry, because the translators tend to really capture the aesthetic of the piece.
I can't make my mind up about translated works, I always feel like I'm missing something in translation, even when the translation is fantastic. Is it the form of the ghazals, tankas and sestinas that attract you, or is it the subject matter?
I have a preference for modern free verse (or 19th century poets anticipating Modernism), but I honestly have huge aversion to metered rhyming poetry if done well. Some does read as rather "sing-songy" too me, which I consider tolerable in nonsense and children's verse, but in more serious adult-oriented work, it can be annoying. I tend to like syllabic and Asian forms a bit more, but that's purely personal preference.
Is it the fact that some of the rhymes sound forced that turns you off, or do even natural-sounding rhymes feel contrived to you? And what is it about free verse that attracts you (the subject matter, perhaps that it sounds closer to prose, etc.)?
The metrical structures are too rigid, or the rhyming reads as forced. Poe would be an example of one I know many people like, but the use of rhyme and meter annoy the crap out of me. I like his fiction a lot, though.
And free verse covers a broad range of subject matter, just like formal poetry in the general sense, so certainly not that. I'm not sure "closer to prose" is quite right either, more that the rhythms and cadence are closer to natural speech while maintaining that heightened "poetic" appeal. I'm sure it's partly influenced by being born in the 20th century and an American.