Okay...I can't help it but...analyzing Poetry is a DRAG IMO - MCT questions

[titianmom]

Hi,

 

Have you ever wondered what the famous poets were thinking when they wrote their poetry? I'm sure they weren't thinking about <enter various poetry techniques/jargon here>.

 

I wonder if learning all kinds of drivel on alliteration, assonance, consonance, end rhyme, rhyme scheme, internal rhyme, eye-rhyme, foot, iamb, trochee, anapest, dactyl, spondee, sonnet, ballad, rime royal, limerick, simile, metaphor, personification, apostrophe.....:blink: would absolutely kill all interest whatsoever in poetry in most kids.

 

And frankly I was always in honors English and did very well in my Lit classes in college and never needed to know all of that stuff.

 

So, is MCT's poetry program really that nec? I mean, really. So what if you know what an iambic whatever is? Is it in a SAT somewhere? Will it make you a better writer of poetry in the end?????

 

What I'm looking for is a poetry program that teaches you how to write better poetry, and has a way to measure "before" and "after" skills so that students produce something they can be proud of and create interest in continuing writing poetry.

 

Does MCT poetry materials do this?

 

Not trying to be difficult, but IMHO, if a student still can't write very good poetry after they're through with a program of that type, then I say it's not that useful of a program. (Many aren't with that kind of measurement, so I'm not picking on any one program. Just looking at the raves on MCT, that's all.)

 

Kim

[Charles Wallace]

Some responses to your post:

 

What I'm looking for is a poetry program that teaches you how to write better poetry, and has a way to measure "before" and "after" skills so that students produce something they can be proud of and create interest in continuing writing poetry.

 

1. There is no such poetry program.

The only people who can do what you're asking? Great poets. Reading and reading and reading tons of good poets. Get yourself an excellent poetry anthology for your kids and just start reading at random, then read some more. The greatest poets are the greatest teachers of poetry, just as the greatest artists are the greatest teachers of art.

 

Have you ever wondered what the famous poets were thinking when they wrote their poetry? I'm sure they weren't thinking about <enter various poetry techniques/jargon here>.

 

2. I think there's ample evidence to prove that they were doing precisely that.

Rarely are sonnets written just by accident. Iambic pentameter doesn't happen by itself. Subtle slant rhyme in a Wilfrid Owens poem doesn't happen for no reason. However (see below), those are only tools by which the author expresses meaning. Like any apprentice understanding how to use any tools, it's important for a developing poet to understand the tools of language.

 

I wonder if learning all kinds of drivel on alliteration, assonance, consonance, end rhyme, rhyme scheme, internal rhyme, eye-rhyme, foot, iamb, trochee, anapest, dactyl, spondee, sonnet, ballad, rime royal, limerick, simile, metaphor, personification, apostrophe.....:blink: would absolutely kill all interest whatsoever in poetry in most kids.

 

3. Not if they have a true interest anyway.

I wonder if learning all kinds of drivel on spanners, metric wrenches, spark plugs, internal combustion, pistons, exhaust valves...would absolutely kill all interest whatsoever in auto mechanics?

 

I wonder if learning all kinds of drivel on valence electrons, ionic bonds, atomic structures, quarks, subatomic particles, weak forces, surface tension, radioactive decay...would absolutely kill all interest whatsoever in chemistry?

 

I wonder if learning all kinds of drivel on the Fibonacci sequence, infinite regression, sines, cosines, tangents, cotangents, variables, constants, exponents, and PEMDAS...would absolutely kill all interest whatsoever in mathematics?

 

Bottom line, what you're talking about is the "tool chest" of poetry. Like all other tools, literary devices and poetic structures are the tools by which a poet constructs her creation. Sure, blow it off -- but then that's essentially like being an auto mechanic who can't tell a crescent wrench from a pair of needlenosed pliers, or a surgeon who refers to an appendix at "that dangly thing."

 

So what if you know what an iambic whatever is? Is it in a SAT somewhere? Will it make you a better writer of poetry in the end?????

 

4. Yes.

Yes, it is in an SAT somewhere, if by an SAT you mean an AP. ;-)

Secondly, yes, it will. Like all knowledge of all tools in a person's craft, knowing the tools and being able to use them makes you a better craftsperson. Knowing the purpose of iambic pentameter -- knowing WHY you use it and what it does for a line of poetry and why you wouldn't want to use it -- enables you to understand the techniques and craft of poetry in an expert fashion. There's a reason why Shakespeare wrote in iambic pentameter, and it's not because it was the style of the time or because he couldn't think of any other way to put his thoughts.

 

Not trying to be difficult, but IMHO, if a student still can't write very good poetry after they're through with a program of that type, then I say it's not that useful of a program. (Many aren't with that kind of measurement, so I'm not picking on any one program. Just looking at the raves on MCT, that's all.)

 

5. I don't care for MCT either. However, I tend to doubt that any program can teach a person to be a better poet. See response #1.

 

Hope that helped.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Charles Wallace

[Mama Lynx]

Bravo. Excellent post!

[JennW in SoCal]

I liked the MCT poetry material, but I only used one of them and only the teacher's manual. I didn't use it as a "program" -- I don't feel compelled to follow someone else's ideas of what needs to be memorized and tested. But usit it in conjunction with the section on poetry from The Well Educated Mind, I had my ds analyze some poems in order to see how it was put together, see the effects of word choice on the mood and rhythm of the poem. MCT's examples were brilliant for showing a poem all marked up -- you can see how to analyze a poem.

 

One of my college English professors always had his undergrad students write an essay on a poem simply because it is hard. You have to really take the poem apart, think about all the bits that make it meaningful, and be able to persuade the reader of your essay on your take of what the poem means and why. A well educated student would be comfortable using the correct terminology in such an essay, so yes it is worth becoming familiar with those terms.

 

I don't see why it is essential to have a student write poetry, but that is just my opinion, no doubt from some psychological baggage from a bad elementary school experience! A good writer has to learn about the elements of his craft, just as a composer needs to know about keys, chords, instrumental ranges and colors. A good writer or composer or artist has been exposed to all the great works and the not so great -- they have to develop a style of their own but understand the structure. So a budding poet absolutely should be introduced to the elements of poetry, but should most of all be reading all kinds of poetry, only stopping to analyze every now and then.

[Chris in VA]

Wow, Charles Wallace. That was not only useful, but beautifully put. Thanks. I'm going to print it out.

[titianmom]

Look for books by Kenneth Koch....Rose, Where Did You Get your Red? is one title I remember. We did these as a group. His emphasis is on the theme of the poem and less on the structure. It's fun to do his exercises in a group and read them aloud to each other.

 

On the other hand, having the tools & terms to talk about poetry fluently REALLY helps, and yes I do think really GOOD poets were consciously using those tools & techniques while the rest of us struggle to implement one, they were flying with multiple methods and incorporating emotional impact, too.

 

 

Thanks all.

 

If this is the case, that poets, say, back in the 1700s learned all the different parts and pieces of poetry and thought of all of these while writing their poems, then how did they learn them? Did these terms even exist in the 1700s?? I'm doubting it without proof.

 

Anyone have evidence of this?

 

Thanks again!

 

Kim

[Guest]

If this is the case, that poets, say, back in the 1700s learned all the different parts and pieces of poetry and thought of all of these while writing their poems, then how did they learn them? Did these terms even exist in the 1700s?? I'm doubting it without proof.

 

 

Yes, indeedy -- most poets were a highly elite group with classical educations that consisted almost entirely of translating back and forth between Latin, Greek, and English -- often added French as well. They had strict lessons in syntax, grammar, scansion, poetic rhetoric, using texts from Aristotle up through current books on writing and rhetoric; their translations included not only prose but also epic and lyric poetry. Oh, and they were beaten if they didn't perform up to par.

 

The stringent classical background required for eighteenth-century poetics is why most poets before the 1800s were male; they were the only ones with access to this kind of education and therefore practice in the kinds of skills they needed to join a classical conversation within poetic form. A few women did write, but they were usually scoffed at for their lack of classical background. There were a very, very few who were educated with their brothers at home or who managed to learn languages or history seriously.

[Colleen in NS]

Will it make you a better writer of poetry in the end?????

 

What I'm looking for is a poetry program that teaches you how to write better poetry, and has a way to measure "before" and "after" skills so that students produce something they can be proud of and create interest in continuing writing poetry.

 

if a student still can't write very good poetry after they're through with a program of that type, then I say it's not that useful of a program.

 

Do you want your child to be able to write poetry? Does the child?

 

I've always been under the impression that it's the reading of and talking about poetry that should come first, then if there is interest, learn how to write some. I thought this was because by reading and talking about it, you start to absorb some of the patterns (all those terms you listed) - then you start to learn the actual terms as you analyze *some* poetry reading, and could turn around and use those techniques yourself, to write.

 

I think that maybe using the poetry section of the WEM would be helpful in some of this absorption/analysis, then if there is interest, you could look for a poetry writing program that would complement this and build on it.

 

On the other hand, having the tools & terms to talk about poetry fluently REALLY helps, and yes I do think really GOOD poets were consciously using those tools & techniques while the rest of us struggle to implement one, they were flying with multiple methods and incorporating emotional impact, too.

 

I got this impression after carefully reading the poetry section of the WEM book. It made me *want* to try more involved poetry reading sometime, instead of being scared away from all those unfamiliar-to-me terms.

[Charles Wallace]

Thanks all.

 

If this is the case, that poets, say, back in the 1700s learned all the different parts and pieces of poetry and thought of all of these while writing their poems, then how did they learn them? Did these terms even exist in the 1700s?? I'm doubting it without proof.

 

Anyone have evidence of this?

 

Thanks again!

 

Kim

 

You betcha.:D

 

Here's a quote from the Oxford English Dictionary:

 

1586 W. WEBBE Eng. Poetrie (Arb.) 69 A myxt foote of 2 sillables..of one short and one long called Iambus as -. 1589 PUTTENHAM Eng. Poesie II. xiii. [xiv.] (Arb.) 135 Of all your words bissillables the most part naturally do make the foote Iambus, many the Trocheus, fewer the Spondeus, fewest of all the Pirrichius.

 

There you go: Iamb, trochee, spondee, pyrrhic. We spell them differently nowadays, obviously.

 

As for inventing them, poetry with regular rhythm is probably as old as human songs, truly. Homer, writing in the fifth century BC, wrote the Iliad and Odyssey in dactylic hexameter; the Beowulf poet, writing much later, wrote with three strong stresses per line corresponding with alliterated words, so we get "Monegum maegthum meodsetla ofteah..."

 

So, yeah, the terms existed in English at least as early as the 1500s; the concepts for them existed much earlier.

 

Does that help?

Edited March 26, 2010 by Charles Wallace

[kokotg]

 

If this is the case, that poets, say, back in the 1700s learned all the different parts and pieces of poetry and thought of all of these while writing their poems, then how did they learn them? Did these terms even exist in the 1700s?? I'm doubting it without proof.

 

 

I just pulled out my handy Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (I found it at Goodwill the other week!) and opened to a random page:

 

DOCHMIAC or dochmius (Gr. "slanted"). A metrical foot of 3 long and 2 short syllables....Dolchomiacs are almost exclusively used in Gr. tragedy, chiefly in passages expressing intense emotion, agitation, or grief, and are frequently found in combination with iambs, anapests, and cretics.

 

So unless all those Greek tragedians were using dochomiacs in passages expressing intense emotion purely by coincidence, it would seem that, yes, poets have been thinking about these things since long before the 1700's.

[Corraleno]

I wonder if learning all kinds of drivel on alliteration, assonance, consonance, end rhyme, rhyme scheme, internal rhyme, eye-rhyme, foot, iamb, trochee, anapest, dactyl, spondee, sonnet, ballad, rime royal, limerick, simile, metaphor, personification, apostrophe.....:blink: would absolutely kill all interest whatsoever in poetry in most kids.

 

IMHO, if a student still can't write very good poetry after they're through with a program of that type, then I say it's not that useful of a program.

 

I think studying poetry makes one a better writer overall, not just a better poet; many of the tools in the "poetic toolkit" are common to all great writing. Even a writer of essays or technical papers will benefit from an understanding of, and fluency with, alliteration and assonance, simile and metaphor, rhythm and flow. Poetry is language stripped down to the bones, so the shapes and sounds of great writing are more explicit and apparent there.

 

Jackie

[titianmom]

and it appears that it evolved over time, actually, along with language (poetic terminology). It was during the classical /renaissance periods that things expanded and more people studied the labels/techniques of poetry and the critics came out and decided what was good poetry and what wasn't good poetry.

 

Poetry continues to evolve. During the 20th century, even more labels were added, and the modernists continue to add labels.

 

The Dictionary of Poetic Terms contains 1600 of them, for ex.

 

My thoughts are this:

 

Unless students have a keen interest in practicing the art of (writing) poetry, you're prob better off just teaching them the basics and moving on to enjoying the reading of such, just as with studying any other form of art.

 

Otherwise, it's like teaching complex mathematical formula to non-majors who have to have a science lab class and have picked Astronomy; it's impressive, but kind of a waste of time. You're better off teaching them the basics and encouraging an interest in the topic with the hopes that some of the students will eventually become amateur astronomers, and not turning them off completely with strings of equations that they can't begin to appreciate.

 

 

Kim

[yslek]

Unless students have a keen interest in practicing the art of (writing) poetry, you're prob better off just teaching them the basics and moving on to enjoying the reading of such, just as with studying any other form of art.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Poetry is a lot like music in this respect; Many of us can study music--scales, intervals, key signatures, etc., but few of us are composers. And, just like in poetry, composers of music know about all of these mechanics and have them down before they begin to compose.

 

Of course, it's not completely necessary to understand the mechanics of poetry or music to compose a poem or piece of music...but it will probably not be very good.:tongue_smilie: (Sorry...I've just read way too many "poems" in which the only poetic component was end rhyme. And, to be fair, I've written my fair share of pretty bad, stilted poetry. :D)

[titianmom]

:iagree:

 

... And, to be fair, I've written my fair share of pretty bad, stilted poetry. :D)

 

 

Been there....done that. Hey, at least we've tried.

 

Kim

 

FWIW, I know a little girl who loves to write poetry and who just might thrive with MCT materials because of her love of poetry.

 

My husband and I don't insist on much, but we are forcing my daughter to complete her studies on music/piano. Mainly because she has so much potential/aptitude. She's also composed some already. But she says she hates it...until she comes to a song that inspires her and she'll sit and play it for an hour or two. That's rare, tho; I think as she moves into more and more classical pieces her interest will grow. She's young. Seems the pieces that she enjoys playing the most are classical at this point.

[nmoira]

I like The Ode Less Travelled by Stephen Fry. It's inspiring and a delight to read.

[Kareni]

I like The Ode Less Travelled by Stephen Fry. It's inspiring and a delight to read.

 

 

Seconding this suggestion! I enjoyed it, too.

 

Regards,

Kareni

[titianmom]

Love Robert Frost myself.

 

:)

 

Kim

[Mrs Mungo]

Great post, Charles Wallace.

 

Thanks all.

 

If this is the case, that poets, say, back in the 1700s learned all the different parts and pieces of poetry and thought of all of these while writing their poems, then how did they learn them? Did these terms even exist in the 1700s?? I'm doubting it without proof.

 

Anyone have evidence of this?

 

Thanks again!

 

Kim

 

A good dictionary would give you much of the proof you seek, as would a good book on Shakespeare.

[Mama Lynx]

I like The Ode Less Travelled by Stephen Fry. It's inspiring and a delight to read.

 

Yes, yes, yes!!

[ekarl2]

There is an essay that Edgar Allen Poe wrote about writing the Raven. It's FASCINATING! It was a very deliberate piece of writing. He talks about the use of repetition, imagery, rhyme scheme, etc., and how all the pieces fit together to form the creepiest poem. That was his goal.

 

I absolutely agree with EVERYTHING Charles Wallace wrote. Bravo! You'll even find references in Shakespeare's own writing about poetic devices. he knew EXACTLY what he was doing and why.

[abbeyej]

I like The Ode Less Travelled by Stephen Fry. It's inspiring and a delight to read.

 

Absolutely! (I love Stephen Fry...) He does use some offensive language on occasion, and some mildly ribald humor. I'd have no concern handing it to another adult, but I would wait to use it for high school with my own kids (it's not meant to be a text book, but I think it could be used as a great supplement for a poetry study) and would just want to give that caveat for anyone else before suggesting they use it with their own teens.

 

It really is marvelous!

[unsinkable]

This is a wonderful thread. One of the best of the best of the best, sir. With honors.

 

Another suggestion for would-be poets is to go to poetry readings. You'll hear a wide variety at "open" type readings. But sometimes the open readings are anchored by some very fine poets.

[Peela]

I love what SWB has said along these lines in her blog at the WTM website. She really puts a case for analysing literature being such a totally different fish to creating it. I really like the article.

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/blog/

 

I do think that there can be a bit of both, for sure, but if literature/poetry analysis (particularly incredibly in depth analysis) dampens the enthusiasm for creativity, if that spark is there, then I think more emphasis should be put on the creativity and/or simple appreciation (as in, how does that poem make me feel? I wonder what the poet was going through when he/she wrote that? When was it written- oh, yes, the same time as such and such. ). I have always loved that SWB hasnt put as much emphasis on the analysis and criticism of literature, as on reading and appreciating it.

All the knowledge in the world about poetry and poetical terms doesnt make my kids appreciate and enjoy poetry, and likely to pick up a poetry book for enjoyment in their own time, or want to write poetry. In fact, it turns them right off. If they first learn to appreciate and enjoy some poetry, they are more amenable to pulling it apart- a little.

So what if they know what those technical terms are, if they never intend to read poetry again, because they associate it with horrible, dry, in depth analysis. Some people enjoy it. Some poets enjoy it. But I am sure there are just as many who dont.

I will be happy if my kids know a very basic smattering of poetical terms and structures, know that there exists a whole world of more in depth terms and structures, and actually recognise a few poets and appreciate them enough to let poetry be a part of their adult lives, as soul food, rather than something they dread because of how it was approached in their childhood.

[Jean in Wisc]

Writing poetry without any study of the bricks and mortar means you are stuck with blank verse or easy-to-create forms. You can't write a sonnet unless you know how a sonnet is written. Maybe you and your children will not be interested in writing poetry--I certainly was not so many years ago. Today, however, I do get out my pen and write periodically. I'm not Shakespeare and never will be, but it is fun to figure out the rhythms and rhyme schemes.

 

Rod & Staff English covers some basics for us in elementary. In high school we do a little poetry each year--usually in 9th grade we study the structures and patterns. The rest of the years we read and discuss the poems.

[lllll]

Some of our dc did this program and enjoyed it:

 

 

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/search/1053445993?author=Matt%20Whitling&detailed_search=1&action=Search

 

 

I'm living proof that a person can hate writing poetry - and even loathe most poetry, esp. modern poetry - and produce dc who love to write poetry and even do basic analyzing. The most traumatic experience of my K-12 ps education was in 9th grade English class. On Friday, the teacher explained some format for some poem, told us to write one, and be ready to read it to the class :scared: on Monday morning. I think that must have been the loooongest weekend of my life. And, yes, my 'poem' STANK and I had to read it aloud in front of the entire class, just like all the other kids. I couldn't even get words to rhyme, I was so bad at it.

 

Fortunately, I haven't passed this on to our dc. All 5 hs'ed dc write poetry off and on. Dd's even send their poems in to our hs newletter and they publish them - complete with illustrations. Although, not all enjoy analyzing poetry. Just the few who did the above book.

Edited March 28, 2010 by ksva

[Reya]

So, yeah, the terms existed in English at least as early as the 1500s; the concepts for them existed much earlier.

 

 

Not in English, fascinatingly enough, though. Our current meter is an attempt at importing the classical meters (which depended on vowel LENGTH for stressed syllables) to English (in which stressed syllables are dependent upon vowel WEIGHT). Before that, Germanic poetry cared only about the number of stressed syllables and perfectly ignored unstressed ones. It's a very different rhythm, but nothing's as funny as listening to a classicist attempt to speak with only length-stress and no weight-stress when recreating ancient poetry.

[Nan in Mass]

Grin - or listening to mothers attempt to do it while trying to explain the concept to their students. I have to say that we quickly gave up and reverted to long vowel/short vowel sounds for our macron/no macron letters. Sigh. I have trouble enough with this concept in French. Try listening to the Harry Potter tape some time. I can't believe how much we rely on stressed syllables to help us decode meaning.

-Nan

[Charles Wallace]

Not in English, fascinatingly enough, though. Our current meter is an attempt at importing the classical meters (which depended on vowel LENGTH for stressed syllables) to English (in which stressed syllables are dependent upon vowel WEIGHT). Before that, Germanic poetry cared only about the number of stressed syllables and perfectly ignored unstressed ones. It's a very different rhythm, but nothing's as funny as listening to a classicist attempt to speak with only length-stress and no weight-stress when recreating ancient poetry.

 

I could be reading the Oxford English Dictionary entry wrong, but the OED details the first time a word is used in print in English. The entry I quoted above is from 1586 and clearly talks about an iamb being "a myxt foote of 2 syllables...of one short and one long..." and so on. I agree, though, about metrics being basically an attempt to copy classical (but mostly Italian) metrical forms -- you're right about stressed syllables in Germanic poetry (Go, Beowulf!).

[titianmom]

Hi all,

 

I think I found something useful that is more in line with what I seek in a poetry class:

 

Best Poems Advanced. Hewitt Homeschooling sells it along with the Teacher's manual/ans keys. You can pick up a used copy for less than $5 used with shipping.

 

Anyway, found one for .50 so I went ahead and ordered it to browse. Figured for 50 cents it was worth the poetry inside, anyway.

 

It's pretty good, actually. Not only do they study the poetry and learn the different techniques employed, and yes, along with the terminology, there are comprehension questions that they must get in order to move on in the lessons (because the comp questions test whether they have learned the technique employed as well as meaning), then they try their hand at composing some poetry!

 

So you learn to appreciate the pieces and give it the 'ole college try at composing. All in one book...although if you started the poetry books early in elementary they have Best Poems Intro, Best Poems Middle, and then the advance book that I bought. (She's already studied basic poetry in CLE which covers lit analysis very thoroughly beginning in 500 level.)

 

They also have Best short stories, Best chapters, Best Plays, etc. It's a 5 book series.

 

Just thought I'd share...

 

The key for all the advanced books (all 5 in the series) come in one booklet for $5 on Hewitt.

 

Kim

[Reya]

I don't even try!

[Reya]

I could be reading the Oxford English Dictionary entry wrong, but the OED details the first time a word is used in print in English. The entry I quoted above is from 1586 and clearly talks about an iamb being "a myxt foote of 2 syllables...of one short and one long..." and so on. I agree, though, about metrics being basically an attempt to copy classical (but mostly Italian) metrical forms -- you're right about stressed syllables in Germanic poetry (Go, Beowulf!).

 

Oh, I meant that the classical meters weren't used in English LONG before the 1500s. :-)

 

Italian poetry was itself an attempt at reviving classical poetry in the vernacular. There were long and exceedingly eye-crossy arguments about how the same should be done in English as inspired by the Italian. I ran into some at some point. Interesting how the arguments were made, but the details...notsomuch.