Poems and Novels

[Androxine Vortex]

I have been reading a lot of old poetry lately (Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, The Iliad) and notice that I like to write in that "poetic" sense. I don't really have a sophisticated way to explain it but when you read epic poems, the way the words are used and the way the language is written it is, well different. It's more metaphoric, descriptive, insightive. Let me give you a (crappy) example off the top of my head:

(Normal book you would read today)
"What is this black magic? What are you? Are you some kind of ghost or evil spirit? Go away!"

(More of that "poetic" feel to it)
"What sorcery is this? Be you fell shade or foul spirit? Away with you and your wickedness!"

Now you might argue and say, "well you just wrote the same thing using different words." Yes, but you can see my point. You would expect the later to be in an old poem rather than the first right? I have noticed that I like to write in a simlar fashion to works like the Iliad and just something you might think came from an old epic poem. And sometimes when I am reading poems (especially the Iliad) I notice that even though it is written in stanzas, it would read just like a normal book if it were in paragraphs.

So what really makes the difference between the two? I know lots of poets use techniques like iambic pentameters and some use rhyme scheme but besides that, what is the difference? Because when I read the Iliad, to me it reads just like a book but in a different format.

I really like writting in these "old poetic" formats but have always written in the style of a modern book. Do you think a fantasy novel would be published (or any other type of novel for arguments sake) if it were written in the format of a poem?

 

[Drakhov]

Coleridge is quoted as saying that prose are words in their best order, poetry the bestwords in their best order.

I think the telling of stories in poetic form probably fell out of fashion - the old Norse sagas, Greek Epics, Shakespeare's works are all poetic in style. Barnes & Noble has an edition of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in print, which has both his original text (with the spelling and grammar intact) and the modern 'translation'. I found the original much more satisfying to read, (and though i've never read the whole of either one, in my opinion the modern translation of the King James Bible doesn't carry the same gravitas as the original).

Tolkien used a lot of poetry / songs in The Lord of the Rings, interspersed with his prose. Whether a modern audience would appreciate an 'Epic' poem that length is another question, as is would you have the patience to write one.

 

[Ravana]

I really like writting in these "old poetic" formats but have always written in the style of a modern book. Do you think a fantasy novel would be published (or any other type of novel for arguments sake) if it were written in the format of a poem?

Honestly? Probably not. Which is sad: I love poetry, and write it regularly. You can still sell verse translations of classics that were themselves originally in verse, but that's largely it. Apart from book-length poems that get shelved under poetry, at least, not whatever genre you're targeting.

So what really makes the difference between the two? I know lots of poets use techniques like iambic pentameters and some use rhyme scheme but besides that, what is the difference? Because when I read the Iliad, to me it reads just like a book but in a different format.

The Coleridge quote Drakhov gave probably expresses it best–when it's good poetry. Unfortunately, there's also bad poetry… which might be described as "any words you can come up with in whatever order makes the line fit." The real problem with writing in, say, iambic pentameter is that you need to have ten syllables each line, with alternating stress. This leaves less accomplished poets trying to shoehorn things in, adding unnecessary words to pad lines out or lying to themselves about where stresses fall–or even how many syllables a word has. And if you do stick to your meter, you've automatically disqualified a huge number of English words simply because they happen to have two unstressed syllables in a row. (In fact, when I write in meter, I tend to use three-beat feet for this reason–I've always held that the notion of iambic being "the natural rhythm of English" is a myth perpetrated by generations of unimaginative English teachers… most of them failed poets. Don't believe me? Scan the phrase "the natural rhythm of English" and tell me what you come up with. The very phrase contradicts its own claim.) Things get even worse when you add rhyme to the equation.

Most writing teachers will tell you that the occasional violation is okay, indeed that the best poetry is that which does include occasional violations of the chosen meter. To which I must vehemently disagree: the best poetry is that which fits the meter so perfectly you don't notice there is a meter unless you're paying attention… not past the first few lines, at least. As you say: "it reads just like a book."

Not that poetry needs to be in metered verse, nor rhyme. "Blank verse" is simply iambic pentameter without rhymes: think Paradise Lost. Free verse–no set internal structure–can be either good or bad, but is often used as an excuse for laziness on the poet's part. I think the most flexible poetic structure, for English at least, is alliterative verse, the technique used in old Anglo-Saxon works such as Beowulf: repeated word-initial sounds mark out the stressed syllables–of which there are usually four per line, with the chosen sound beginning at least one of the two stressed syllables in each "half" of the line, possibly as many as three of them but rarely all four–but which otherwise permits any number of unstressed syllables, provides some flexibility even for the stressed ones, and ignores end-rhyme altogether, save by coincidence or convenience. So you get, for instance:

Lo, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore…

What! we of the Spear-Danes of yore days, so was it
That we learn'd of the fair fame of kings of the folks
And the athelings a-faring in framing of valour.
Oft then Scyld the Sheaf-son from the hosts of the scathers,
From kindreds a many the mead-settles tore…

Lo! the Spear-Danes’ glory through splendid achievements
The folk-kings’ former fame we have heard of,
How princes displayed then their prowess-in-battle.
Oft Scyld the Scefing from scathers in numbers
From many a people their mead-benches tore.

Hwät! we Gâr-Dena in geâr-dagum
þeód-cyninga þrym gefrunon,
hû þâ äðelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scêfing sceaðena þreátum,
monegum mægðum meodo-setla ofteáh.

(Introductory lines from the versions of Beowulf on Project Gutenberg… including, obviously, the one that hasn't been translated from Old English. You might notice that the author of the original "cheated" a bit in line three, using /ä/ and /e/ as his "matching" sounds. That's okay: they're close enough.)

You can see how much easier it is to work with something like this than with rigorous prescriptions regarding feet and end-rhyme. It's also a useful one for translating works that follow some convention in another language which doesn't have an English equivalent… including Ancient Greek works, which follow conventions so complex–at least to English writers: Wikipedia's claim that it's in dactylic hexameter is a deceptive oversimplification–that I hesitate to even attempt an explanation; it involves syllable "weight" rather than stress. Maybe Chilari would be willing to have a go at it. (Sanskrit and Arabic use similar techniques… and there's a good reason Japanese haiku don't sound like what the English description of hiaku makes you think it ought to.)

There's a lot more that could be said, of course… but in response to your basic query, I'd have to say it's unlikely you'd be able to sell an original epic poem to a publisher. On the other hand, with e-pub, you might be able to find a niche market somewhere–so give it a whirl if you're really into the idea.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Very good post thanks! I am not trying to boast by saying "I have the next best epic" but I'm just saying that I like to write in that style. But I think writting it in a normal paragrapgh format will be better becuse it's modern and what people are used to. Thanks a lot for the helpful reply.

(Although with that being said, I also have to be careful not to overdo it because lots of people don't like reading in "old timey" sense. I just need some more practice with balance and I think I should be good there)

 

[Ravana]

Oh, don't let me discourage you from writing an epic poem–I'm just saying your conscience will probably be secure from the ravages of tree-murder guilt if you do go through with it.

Perhaps the most difficult part of writing a long poem is simply maintaining the form itself, without becoming sloppy or trite. You may be thrilled with the first hundred verses you set down, still fairly happy with the next hundred… but somewhere around four hundred, give or take, depending on your tolerance for such things, you're going to ask yourself why the blazes you're subjecting yourself to this artificial, cramped form. Eventually you stop agonizing over getting "the best words in the best order," and start doing anything that will give you a line ending where you need it. You really have to be committed to doing the thing for itself in order to stick it out. And you have to be even more willing than usual to recast or discard bits you've already done–because moving and splicing sections, or expanding them from within when you realize there's something you need to add, becomes that much harder when you can't simply start and end new sentences wherever you please. The advice of "don't get it right, get it wrote" is something I'd never recommend applying to formal poetry, due to the difficulty of revision. You'll still end up revising, of course (even verses you thought you had down solid), but trying to get it as close to right as possible the first time will leave the remainder of that task much easier. Take copious notes about where you want to go, so you don't lose anything in your head… but do sweat the details when you're turning it into verses, because the details are the only point to turning it into verse in the first place. Otherwise, it is just prose–with line breaks, perhaps, but still prose.

(In case it isn't obvious from the above, you cannot expect to be able to write verse at the same speed you write prose. This would be a very poor choice for a NaNoWriMo project.…)

Writing formal poetry is great exercise, really: nothing will teach you the ins and outs of the language faster than trying to put it into a carefully measured format. Takes a lot of patience and dedication, though, especially if you want to go long. In my opinion, it's worth the effort.

P.S. Believe it or not, there are actually forms more demanding than rhymed verse. Look up "sestina." Most poets write one at some point in their careers… and very few write a second.