Debate battle: Britt vs Poet on the Piano

First battle commences! Just for fun to see how a debate-type contest might go in the future. You will each have a maximum of 5 posts. You must wait for the other person to reply before posting again. Observers, please refrain from posting or contributing until Britt and Mary Anne have finished. Judging will be a combination of me and public voting.

The topic for discussion is this:

'Regrettably, formed poetry has been unceremoniously neglected in today's poetry world.'

First in can either agree or disagree with this topic. Second in then has to obviously support the opposite argument.

Guidelines:
- You can and are encouraged to use research. Feel free to post links or samples to support your argument.
- In general, respond asap and at least within 24hrs. If you go beyond this penalties may be incurred.
- Have fun!

I don't think it's regrettable --

poetry is a work of art that has so many pieces of ourselves as writers. How can you truly get out the emotion and thought process behind a poem when you have any sort of restriction, telling you you cannot get everything you want in?

Like everything else in this world, poetry evolves. Formed poetry is often seen as restrictive and archaic, especially in this 'free' world we have now, where rules and laws are lax and more open minded to freedom and opinion within our writing. Ushering in ideas like prose poetry (that has absolutely no form or specifics to it) allows us to freely direct our emotions and dialouge anyway the writer feels necessary to.

It's been debated among many people what makes a poem, a poem. Is it the form or the flow, the rhythm or rhyme? I don't think there is a guideline. It is open to each individual. However, formed poetry has become abandoned over the past decade.

Poetry did not just spring up from nowhere. It has roots as all of us do. Sure, we are influenced by others and by our ever-growing culture, but we still remember our tradition.

Let's take a step back and actually give examples. It is believed that the Ancient Sumerian poem called "Epic of Gilgamesh" is one of the earliest works of literature. Other epics include "Beowolf" as well as Homer's "Iliad" and "Odyssey" ("A Brief History of Poetry" on plantpov.com). Notice that to make a poem an epic is not just including tragedy and a hero's adventure but many more characteristics.... how does that limit one's ability? It doesn't have to rhyme and it encourages a poet to use their own style in being lyrical as well as dramatic with their narrative.

While I can see my opponent's side about the evolution of poetry, I still believe formed poetry isn't being respected as much as it should. Yes, others might view it as a restriction and that is up to their style and thoughts about how a poem should work, but that doesn't mean formed poetry can't offer the same (if not more) originality, insight, and emotion as free verse might. In a way, the indirect can be more effective than the direct because it offers more depth and self-reflection... suchas a poet may write "I feel sad and alone", therefore almost concluding their emotions because you know the layers of their feelings now.... whereas formed verse may not explain more but leave it to the reader to "uncover" or "decode" their words.

I appreciate history and understand it's importance in our current era and the future. It definitely does lay the foundation...

however anything "old school" such as pieces of literature written so many years ago (Google cites: "Along with the Odyssey, the Iliad is among the oldest extant works of Western literature, and its written version is usually dated to around the eighth century BC. Recent statistical modelling based on language evolution has found it to date to 760-710 BC...")

As you can see -- ancient text is exactly that -- ancient. In our modern world we hardly accept anything listed as old-fashioned or "traditional", in fact many cultures are pushing so far forward that they shun anything traditional.

These pieces of literature were truly brilliant, there is no doubt about it -- but it has to be said that language was very different in that time, too. Perhaps not as emotional, a little more guarded than we are taught to be today. The language itself shows restrictions that we do not necessarily have today, as poetry has become so free-flowing and modernized that we use every day slang. It can be said that Shakespeare made up his own words throughout writing -- but that only proves the constant evolution (from texts before his time).

Take a look at one of the "greats" of the 20th Century -- Pablo Neruda. He is a very popular poet amongst PnQ (and the world) and has said to have helped paved the way to free-verse poetry being what it is today. His emotion, imagery and God-given talent has expanded poetry to places people never thought it was able to go. He did not have to hit a certain syllable count or rhyme a particular line with another, but imagine what much of his poetry could look like if he was reigned in with restrictions such as these? What would his flow look like?

"In a way, the indirect can be more effective than the direct because it offers more depth and self-reflection... suchas a poet may write "I feel sad and alone", therefore almost concluding their emotions because you know the layers of their feelings now.... whereas formed verse may not explain more but leave it to the reader to "uncover" or "decode" their words."

The argument could be proven for the other side here as well :) You could easily have a formed verse such as a Haiku/Senyru:

You make me feel sad
You've treated me so badly
I really hate you.

The argument, I believe, has more to do with talent than with form/free verse. It takes pretty incredible talent to pull off formed poetry in a way that the masses can connect with a poem, however with free verse you are (literally) free to take your reader on a journey, without cutting pieces out to fit the restriction.

I do agree and think it would be ignorant to ignore the fact that everyday, our culture is evolving.... possibly to the point where more and more traditions are being thrown aside and another medium chosen.

You also make a truthful point in regards to language as being different then. Formalities were variant as well as addressing one with respect. So certain ideas or thoughts in one's mind may not have been pushed forward onto paper because it was personal, or writing was considered formal and not casual or conversational with the reader. More to inform then appeal perhaps.

Pablo Neruda is a magnificent writer and though I haven't read too many of his works, I have come across a few of his poems and hope to keep reading in the future. He did expand his poetry with the openness of letting his ideas, emotions, images flow, yes, but that does not mean every poet should be encouraged to write in free verse and free verse alone.

I do want to say though that it depends on the style the writer prefers. I know this is similar as well to what you have concluded and it does refer back to taste/talent as I appreciate both types. Why limit yourself to one? I would highly recommend each writer not just limited themselves by closing any further doors of possibility. Maybe they have always written in free verse but want this particular poem to have structure, well-thought rhythmic ability that shows growth in their language and placing, having no need for fillers. I think it does boil down to preference but that formed poetry at some point in our lives can make us see the need for it, maybe not in vast amounts, but every so often.

I still remember my freshmen English class in high school.... there were poems posted on the cabinets in the back of the room and some students asked our teacher, those aren't poems are they? Because they were written in free verse and as you probably know, a majority of younger people may believe rhyming is what makes a poem. They didn't know and hadn't seen differently. But free verse does have forms of other patterns, literary forms (like onomatopoeia, simile, metaphor, repetition) that might be considered formed in a very lenient way.

I'm still learning about rhythm and flow but have heard some poets say each poem should have rhythm. Does that then make it a formed poem because consciously we have to edit and take care with our words, other than just letting the first feeling we have emerge? A deeper part of that is looking at mastering rhythm through these "forms" of meter: iambic, trochaic, pyrrhic, anapestic..... they do focus on syllable count but help us have a beat or feel of the significance and stress of words, like in lyric poetry.

Holy penalty coming my way for being SO late.. lol

I agree with you that it is all a writers preference -- however in this little PnQ community, forms are not popular anymore. They used to be, perhaps for a challenge, perhaps because it was "fun" to do (I beg to differ, lol), or perhaps it was to follow the PnQ-writing trend. Either way, the art of formed poetry has petered out quite a bit in our family, and I believe largely because it's too.. out of date? If that makes sense.

A lot of people have many misconceptions about poetry.. perhaps a lot of people who don't know poetry well at all only believe formed poetry is actual poetry (especially your typical four lined stanza, abab rhymers) -- however there is a reason poets who have evolved in their writing turn to prose or free verse. Formed poetry may be a stepping stool, or gateway to learn the very basics of gathering a rhythm, but once you've become perhaps more skilled, or want to jump into the personal side of poetry even more, writers jump ship and leave formed poetry behind.

I'm not saying formed poetry is necessarily bad, just one of those things that are as out-dated as Shakespearean language. Okay.. maybe not THAT outdated :)

I believe that to writers rhythm and flow comes naturally.. a lot of people instantly believe that means it has to rhyme, but rhythm of course isn't rhyming :) I think having a specific meter is stressed definitely in formed poetry, but not so much in free verse/prose (as all "rules" are out the window).

I think the entire argument here keeps showing just how modern poetry has become. In the end, we as writers are free to write whatever we want, that's the beauty of it -- but what does the majority lean toward, both as writers and readers?

Right, rhythm is not about rhyming and it can come from both good formed poetry as well as free verse.

That is another truth that poetry has become modern, and is very expressive. It IS an art to me, and like other forms of art, has evolved. Just like a few lines could be considered a poem, reminds me of empty canvasses where a painter may dot it with only a few lines, or points. And if that is what the artist wanted, he created a purpose for it.

Yes, we do have freedom as writers :] Especially with how vulgar we are, how political, religious, sensual, you name it. We have that power to share any emotion or opinion.

I think the majority of readers could be un-informed. I know I have not studied many poets of different eras... I have ones I learned in 6th grade, Robert Frost, then specific slam poets I've come across that are my favorite. That doesn't mean for me though that free verse is automatically, hands down, what I always search for. It is all about taste in my opinion. Just like a cup of coffee. People do have routines and become immune (I guess you could call it) to waking up, let's say with a black cup of coffee w/ one sugar on the side. They may never stray from that but what if one day they wanted to try tea? Apart from their routine? Just to say they have. In my mind that is becoming more cultured.

As writers, it is up to them. Some writers live for the "moment" and right solely based on the reality/honesty of their emotions. While others write after deep contemplation, not necessarily analyzing the situation or their perspective, but constantly building upon it, editing, re-constructing. So it all about the way in which they write.... if they are more versatile and are willing to attempt new forms to express the beauty of them, or if they feel they can truly be themselves with poetry in free verse only.

I don't think it's about readers (or writers, or anyone) being uninformed, really. The topic states:

"'Regrettably, formed poetry has been unceremoniously neglected in today's poetry world.'"

It's being neglected because it's out-dated compared to today's art. If there was more craving for formed poetry, more urging by readers to want to see forms, we would be seeing more formed poetry being written, especially here on PnQ.

It's a surprise when a form wins on the front page - while it does happen, free verse is very dominant here.

It's a lesson of supply and demand. There is no demand for formed poetry anymore.

Ok, good stuff so far, now wrap it up with a closing statements! :)

Formed verse is not too ancient to still be present and effective in shaping today's society. While it may not be at high demand with this generation, it is because there is a lack of immersion into the roots of our language.... we are more able to learn and therefore master how to structure our words to fit certain requirements, yet inspire.

It is regrettable indeed that formed verse has been forgotten or is seemingly fading. I know many may respect it and some may choose to confront it, but I believe it will keep up with today's evolving forms of expression. Even with free verse and prose and other mediums of writing, formed poetry will still be sought in order to have foundation to what we are trying to say. It is a gift. It teaches us proper grammar, ways to explore placement of punctuation, and further our imagination through exploration of rhyme, syllable count, literary devices, etc. Forms have value and have the ability to persuade others in a organized and efficient way.

GAH I SUCK AT TIMELY-NESS (and the spelling of that word! lol)

Poetry is constantly evolving; formed poetry has a time and a place and it is not with modern poetry at this time. It has such restrictions and in this ever-changing world, we are going so far from tradition that free expression is not only welcomed and encouraged. As things go in waves, we may see the return of formed poetry someday, but as for now it remains in the vaults to be appreciated, yet left alone.

;)

And with all the above being said, let's all go and write form poetry!!!

whose with me??

Shoot me a Haiku or an Etheree? perhaps, a Tanka?
or even better a Sonnet.. nah, may be some out of the ordinary rhyme schemes?

I mean come on, we are a "new generation" of poets, we might as well come up with some modernize forms ;)

---

( I think after the two closing statements, we are now free to make comments right? If not feel free to delete this one )

That was actually really freakin hard lol

Part 2: Both contestants have to create 3 original poems to back up their point of view and demonstrate if formed poetry can still be relevant or not

:P Just kidding. Well done to both, very interesting reading! Hope you had some fun taking part.

Judging - Anybody who has been an observer here, please pm me who you think has won this debate (short reasoning would be nice too, although not compulsory). The winner will be decided by a combination of votes and by me, so hopefully I'll announce the observations in a few days.

Yep Everlasting it's fine to post in the thread now :) I think it is interesting that poetry nowadays has gravitated away from formed verse. I wonder what this era will be labelled as by future observers looking back

Lazy :p

Colm, I don't know what I would have done if you were serious haha! That would have taken some time man....

I did have tons of fun too, and as Britt said, it was hard to keep going, to find examples or argue that this is the best, since I think we're both on the same page and can see poetry evolving.

So did MA kick my butt... or? lol

I was just about to post :)

It was close and you both made good points, so she didn't kick your butt Britt but Mary Ann did win! Based on a combination of members voting (thanks to those that did) and my vote, plus the small penalties incurred for being late. Congrats Mary Ann! I actually would personally agree with Britt on her stance that formed poetry is becoming forgotten but that it isn't regrettable and she made most of the points I would have made. However looking at it from the devil's advocate position Mary Ann did a great job of convincing me formed poetry still has a place.

I'll might return here to add my 2 cents but most has been been said already! Hope it was fun and thanks for taking up the challenge :)

Woooo nice job MA!

She and I were PMing throughout, like "CRAP WHAT CAN WE SAY NEXT?" I ran out of good ideas after... idk.. the second post? lol. That was harder than I expected.

Awesome idea Colm! I hope more participate in the future.

Congratulations Mary Ann

and also Britt!

Thanks Colm for the challenge. And it is a challenge.

Ooooh, this is a great idea! Well done you two! Can we know the score?

I might be interested in participating in future! Pair me with Kevin, we'll have each other balls in our teeth.

Kevin always loved that.

Was not expecting that at all, thank you guys! Colm- great opportunity to try this out and can't wait to be the observer of the next two debators.

We were seriously stumped for a bit. I think it was the second day of this I actually set my alarm earlier to type out a response before leaving for school.... because if I didn't make myself sit down and try different approaches, nothing would have happpened.

Great job as well, most of the time I was nodding along to your thoughts Britt, but of course you had to spite me and get the first say lol

Very cool. Congrats, MaryAnn. Both of you were convincing.

Can't wait to read the next debate.