Museeker's Map

A Poet's Guide to Traditional Form and Style 

A word about Museeker:
He's packed with erudition --
a sometimes tongue-in-cheeker,
crusader on a mission;
a knowledgeable, generous,
good-humored word magician --
we're lucky when he'll mentor us
in technical tradition!
 
                  - Mary Sullivan

The following gems have been mined, with the author's gracious permission, from forum postings at P.O.E.M.S. Place and the Sonnet Central Writing Board. (The former, no longer active, was decidedly friendlier to novice or recreational writers, but the latter inherently more instructional.) Museeker's absolute mastery of the craft is evident in his own poetry, and anyone who has been fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of his critiques will attest to the fact that they are unfailingly courteous, pertinent, forthright, and immeasurably helpful. Thank you, Mu, for these thoughts on ...

~ ~ ~

Formalism
In response to a question about villanelle writing rules.

For the specifics of the form and the most noteworthy example (Dylan Thomas' "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"), consult the following link:

www.uni.edu/~gotera/CraftOfPoetry/villanelle.html

This includes a good definition, a bit of history, and more pertinent info about the form. It's a challenge to do--an even greater one to do well, but it's quite rewarding once accomplished, and it's a great exercise in disciplining oneself to rhyme scheme and repetition within a prescribed poetic format. The real challenge is to do all you can with the repetitive lines--try to use them in different ways while maintaining the integrity of the repetition. You have to be careful at the outset--only two rhymes are allowed in the whole poem, so you must be sure to pick words with plenty of rhyming possibilities, or you'll get stuck.

The rhyme scheme and the repeated line patterns are the only real requirements of the villanelle. No strict metrical requirement either--some are in pentameter, some in tetrameter, and I would imagine others have been written using other meters. Iambic pentameter is the metrical choice I've seen most frequently, though.

With respect to variations, I'll make a comment that is applicable to poetry in general. Nothing in poetry is written in stone. As a matter of fact, I would contend that much of the most lovely and effective poetry written has deviated from the prescribed norm. However, the key factor here is that you have to know how to break the rules. There's a world of difference between one who flouts convention for effect and one who neglects it because he's not competent enough to adhere.

I'm a purist--I absolutely adore formalist poetry. There are several other types of formal poems besides the villanelle and the sonnet (e.g., pantoum, triolet, rondeau, sestina); the pantoum is similar to a villanelle in a lot of ways; however, it's a bit easier because you're allowed more than two rhymes.

The villanelle and pantoum are especially appealing to me because I believe that repetition, if used competently within context, is one of the most effective and moving modes of poetic communication.

I hope I've given you the type of information you were looking for. I also hope that your interest is piqued sufficiently to lead you to try writing in some of the other formalist genres; I've found that forays into these areas have enriched me tremendously and facilitated increased technical skill, creativity, and growth in the craft.

~ ~ ~

Labeling
In response to a lament on the absence of clear labeling to distinguish poetry from prose.

As one who's long been a standard bearer for many things considered "out of date," I empathize and agree with you wholeheartedly. Criteria have long been established as determinants for poetic and literary forms. There is certainly no law that demands that these criteria be followed; however, for purposes of classification and truth to the genre, we owe it to ourselves as poets, and to the craft itself, to correctly assign and categorize our creative efforts. It seems to me that the whole purpose of formulaic poetry is to adhere to and practice the specific discipline in question. If the boundaries are allowed to break or shift, what's the point in even having generic divisions? I would add that minor deviations are permissible, within the subjective constraints of poetic license and as long as they are not a reflection of the poet's inability to follow the form.

~ ~ ~

Technique

In response to an expressed concern about adopting unfamiliar techniques.

You wrote that you're not too fond of enjambment but you're trying to keep an open mind and try some new tricks. This issue bears consideration, in my opinion, because it reflects a concerted attempt to incorporate into the creative process what is only a device. Enjambment is no different than metaphor, simile, rhyme, hyperbole, or any other technique that a writer uses to achieve his/her fundamental purpose, which is self-expression. I would be especially wary of the hazards of feeling obliged to master any poetic device--at risk is the danger of emphasizing technique over content, which is to be avoided at all costs. Devices are wonderful when used effectively; however, when their incorporation becomes a chore, the product is apt to reflect that difficulty.

I'll wager you feel pretty comfortable with rhyme. This is not only because of your skill and facility with the device, it’s also because rhyme is now a natural and integral part of your creative process. This is how it should be with ANY device--appearance of any creative technique such as enjambment or metaphor or hyperbole should be the manifestation of the author's perceived need for it--and it should not stand out because of the attempt, although its incorporation may be noteworthy because of the facility or wit with which it was utilized.

It’s good to be conversant with a variety of devices--they are, after all, the tools of the trade in the craft we practice. However, no great poem is great simply because of the inclusion of this type of component; there is an aggregate value comprising all of the means and measures used, no one serving a greater capacity than its fellow--and all contributing organically to the value of the work as a whole. In this way a kind of literary synergy is achieved, the creative whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

Forgive the lecture, please--I'm sure you're already aware of much of what I've rambled on about. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't have this enjambment bone stuck too deeply in your craw. No law (written or un-) that mandates any or a certain number of literary devices in a piece of writing; they are designed to enrich and fortify--but they're not an end in themselves.

~ ~ ~

Scansion

In response to a question about line division according to a perceived change in metrical pattern.

Perhaps I can help to shed a little light on the problem you're having here.

First of all, I wouldn't consider your poem to have mixed meter. Requiring the reader to add a beat to a line, or adding an extra one in composition, is not the same as mixing one meter with another.

When determining the scansion of a poem, you have to determine the predominating meter. Because a poem is in iambic pentameter doesn't mean that every single line is going to have exactly ten syllables, or that each one is going to be perfectly iambic. It just means that iambic pentameter dominates enough to afford the poem that general rhythmic feel.

Here's one of my favorite of Shakespeare's sonnets (Sonnet 29): 

When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes, 
I all alone beweep my outcast state 
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries 
And look upon myself and curse my fate, 
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope, 
Featured like him, like him with friends possess'd, 
Desiring this man's art and that man's scope, 
With what I most enjoy contented least; 
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising, 
Haply I think on thee, and then my state, 
Like to the lark at break of day arising 
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate; 
      For thy sweet love remember'd such wealth brings 
      That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

This is certainly iambic pentameter, as are all of Shakespeare's sonnets; however, there are three lines that have an extra beat (Ll. 3, 9, and 11). Look at L9-he begins the volta here and actually adds that syllable at the end of the line as a change in meter that highlights the change in thought. The L11 meter is stretched a beat to agree with that ("arising"). Three out of 14 lines here are not in perfect pentameter (they all have 11 syllables-perfect iambic pentameter would require 10); yet the poem is still a sonnet, and it's still in iambic pentameter. (Notice as well that not every foot in every line is iambic.)

~ ~ ~

Terms and Tips
Enjambment?

An enjambed line is simply one whose idea is continued to the ensuing line sans punctuation. It's not necessarily characterized by syllabic division, as you do with "pud-ding" in the first line of your second quatrain. As a matter of fact, there are several lines in your poem that are enjambed--any line that is not end-stopped qualifies technically. Your "pudding" line is just a very obvious example--and not necessarily the better for its salience. Again, the idea is to be able to fit the device seamlessly and naturally into your expression--not to make the content or concept accommodate the device.

Caesura?

It is simply a stop somewhere in the line, kind of the opposite of enjambment. Here's an example: 

Oh, give us joy and wonder to behold
The innocence that now untainted rests
Upon her forming cheeks.  Hold back the bold
That likes to thrust itself upon the crests
Of life...

See it in L3? That's it there-the period after "cheeks." All of the other lines are enjambed.

Choosing Rhymes

My suggestion is to challenge yourself with your rhymes. One of the first (and most helpful) comments I received on this site was to stay away from easy rhymes and to make the pairings fresher and more interesting. I find I do so now on a regular basis, and I feel that it really does add to the effect of my poems.

In response to place/plate/taste/date in a poem with abab rhyme scheme.

One thing I'll mention with regard to the rhyme in the first quatrain. I've found that nonrhyming lines that have the same vowel sound detract somewhat from the strength of the rhyme. You've got the long "a" sound in all four lines; your rhyme in this four-set would be a bit stronger if it played off a different vowel sound, I think.

Proofreading

I feel that a very good piece of writing can be unjustly diminished by careless editing or poor proofreading. (As a technical editor by trade, I'm particularly sensitive to this.)

"And yet do none of nature's poets claim
themselves alone deserving of the name." -M.S.

This offers an important and humbling insight: The highest-quality art pales in comparison to God's grandeur (as Hopkins would have it); indeed, the intent of every artist is to paint as competently as he/she is able with that imitative brush, portraying nature itself as truthfully as possible through the chosen medium.

Your couplet strikes me in particular-every time I call myself a poet I feel to some degree presumptuous, for who among us is truly deserving of the name? Sometimes I feel as if I am only practicing to become a poet, in the same way medicine or law is "practiced."

An "If" for Rhymers

~ ~ ~

Conversation overheard ...

Lary: (After submitting my reply I think I saw Professor Muse killing the challenge in the hallway with a grammatical candlestick.)

Museeker: You saw nothing, see? You've never even heard of Professor Muse, see? 'Cause ya wanna keep those nice fingers o' yours to type up your pretty poetry with, see?

    Nyah! Nyah!