# Writing Poetry: Abstract vs Concrete Imagery and Specificity



## Ariel (Sep 30, 2016)

_“Don’t tell me the moon is shining, show me the glint of light on broken glass.”_
-Anton Chekhov

The prevailing preference in poetry today is to write in concrete imagery as opposed to an older convention of writing more abstractly.  It’s from this convention that we have the adage, “show, don’t tell.”

Abstract refers to concepts that have no physical representation.  They are ideas or concepts.  Many of poetry’s worst clichés are from romantic poetry and are abstractions.  Ideas like honor, hope, love, soul, madness, and god are all abstractions and lend very little to the reader’s imagination.

Concrete refers to objects or events that have a physical component available to the senses.  They are solid and can be interacted with in the real world.

It is easier for a reader to grasp the imagery and the emotion of a poem or even a story if the imagery used is concrete—the glint of light on broken glass rather than “the moon is shining.”  Writing concrete imagery will also help your writing to feel fresh and vivid as opposed to archaic and dull.

How do you know when you’re writing with concrete imagery?  The best test is to use your senses.  Answer the following questions and you’re well on your way to writing with a concrete image.

“What is seen?”
“What can be smelled?”
“What can be touched?”
“What can be tasted?”
“What can be heard?”

General and specific terms are not opposites in the same way that concrete and abstract terms are—rather one is a distillation of the other.  For example the term _furniture_ refers to a group of objects while _futon_ refers to a specific item of furniture.  Usually specific terms will help your writing to be more clear rather than vague.  It will also be more interesting.  With the use of adjectives these terms can become more and more specific so that futon becomes _red metal futon_.

Using specific, concrete images allows writing to be more accessible, explore abstract ideas with the use of metaphor and simile, and creates interest in more vivid, clear ways than using general abstract images.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 30, 2016)

“Don’t tell me the moon is shining, show me the glint of light on broken glass.”
Whilst both are concrete one is abstracted from the other, in the sense of being removed from it. A fraction creates an awareness of the whole in its parts, rather than as a simple whole.

Edit. Sorry, I wasn't happy with that, but hit 'post' rather than 'cancel' by mistake.


----------



## Ariel (Oct 1, 2016)

The quote is not a direct one but rather a well-known summary of advice Anton Chekhov gave to his brother in a letter and later attributed directly to him. From https://www.google.com/amp/quoteinvestigator.com/2013/07/30/moon-glint/amp/?client=safari :



> In May, 1886, Chekhov wrote to his brother Alexander, who had literary ambitions: “In descriptions of Nature one must seize on small details, grouping them so that when the reader closes his eyes he gets a picture. For instance, you’ll have a moonlit night if you write that on the mill dam a piece of glass from a broken bottle glittered like a bright little star, and that the black shadow of a dog or a wolf rolled past like a ball.”



Further, the quote may be the opening of the article but the article is about both abstraction vs concrete imagery _and_ the importance of being specific in descriptions.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 1, 2016)

So I make a list of parts, and then show how they are associated

A dog rolled past like a ball,
following his own agenda,
whispering, half seen, trees
talked to each other.

He clutched his coat against
the chill damp air,
whistled against the silence,
stamped his feet.

A star appeared amongst
the newly visible clouds
and then the moon lit up
everything, revealing the night.

But if I start with the unifying thing, then list the parts, the reader knows exactly where I am going.

Dark night, and
a dog rolled past like a ball,
following his own agenda.
Whispering, half seen, trees
talked to each other.

He clutched his coat against
the chill, damp, air;
whistled against the silence,
stamped his feet.

A star appeared amongst
newly visible clouds
and then the moon lit up
everything. 

That could appeal if the point is the moonlight and being able to see, but that needs a continuation. As it stands, for me, it is putting the climax at the start.

That is, however, nearly all concrete imagery, let’s try some abstraction.

Following his own agenda
a dog-ball rolled by.
Trees exchanged ideas
in half heard whispers.

The insidious air caught
at him inside his coat,
made melancholy his whistle
as he waded through it.

First one bright, stellar point
among amorphous masses.
Then bright, lunar, light
reveals the night.

Well, I don’t know if I really illustrate your point, or if I am simply having a lot of fun trying variations, but your thread has got me thinking, amsaw; for which I thank you. I hope I have not bored everybody else.


----------



## Ariel (Oct 1, 2016)

Olly, I should know by now to let you finish your thought. You always bring something gracious and thought-provoking to the table.


----------



## Darkkin (Oct 4, 2016)

It seems similar to taking what some people read as a metaphor and making it literal, or tangible as the case may be.  An embodiment of silence or something that is less than nothing.  Personification, characterization, and anthropomorphizing of incorporeal entities...e.g.

And in that moment as the final breath fades, it emerges—Silence.
Utterly perfect, the stark silhouette of the chaos where life abounds,
a contrast, painfully sharp.  Loneliness, seeks to claim recompense.

Listen.  You will hear it howling in the stillness, a demon’s illusion,
the voice of Loneliness niggling in thought unspoken, familiar doubt.
Remember silence, know silence—Touch, breaking through confusion.

A hand reaching out shattering the illusions, Silence, speaking skin to skin.


It was the shadow lifting the hand, there—
at the back; no one saw.  Cue—Nothing.

These were the thoughts, detailed, waiting—
no one wanted to hear.  It’s nothing…

It was there and gone before the nothing.
In essence, it became just that—nothing.

But it wasn’t nothing; it was the Lessthan.
Sharp, shadowed—And unlike nothingness,
Lessthan—_felt, tried._


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 5, 2016)

> The prevailing preference in poetry today is to write in concrete imagery as opposed to an older convention of writing more abstractly...
> Many of poetry’s worst clichés are from romantic poetry and are abstractions...
> It is easier for a reader to grasp the imagery and the emotion of a poem or even a story if the imagery used is concrete



I wonder how much of this is a product of the thinking of the time? Is it overall easier to grasp a concrete image, or simply easier for a modern reader unused to the abstract image? Would the concrete images of today have appeared banal if presented to the romantic poets? Are the worst cliches obvious only in hindsight? I am reminded of  Wordsworth's admiration of Felicia Hemans; will some admired modern poetry be as mocked in  time? 

Things tend to go full circle, I am reluctant to dismiss the abstract image because it does not fit modern precepts, they may not last.


----------



## midnightpoet (Oct 5, 2016)

Agreed, Olly, you should be able to write what you want to - however, if the publishers of today are only taking the "concrete" and you want to be published, trying the abstract may be hard. Frankly, I'm a "go against the grain" type of guy - following the crowd I'm not likely to do.  As far as which is best, I think it is a matter of taste, although I can see Ams' point.


----------



## Ariel (Oct 7, 2016)

I prefer poetry which uses concrete imagery to explore abstractions. I'm not arguing to never use abstractions. That, frankly, borders on the absurd.  I am saying that in general a poem is more memorable if there are concrete images to orient the reader into.  Take Poe's "The Raven":



> The Raven





> Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
> Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
> While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
> As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
> ...




In the first stanzas the narrator is pondering, remembering, and wishing which we know because the narrator tells us so and are all abstractions. But we also know the time of day and year, that he was napping with a book in his lap in front of a dying fire. By the end we also know where the bird is sitting.  We even know the color and material of the narrator's curtains. It's these details that allow us to see, clearly, what the narrator is seeing and experiencing.  And these details give us further clues as to the state of the narrator.  

Why are the curtains purple?  I'm sure, ultimately, it's for reasons of assonance and sound and rhyme but the color indicates something else about the narrator. At the time the poem was written the color purple was one of the hardest color dyes to produce and was available only to the wealthy.  That changed in 1856 (The Raven was written in 1845).  This small, concrete detail lets us know that the narrator had wealth. Purple is also the color of mysticism, is worn to this day as symbol of authority and power by Roman Catholic bishops, and is said to indicate wisdom.

Concrete imagery is important to poetry.  Using it well can give a wealth of detail to a poem that indicates far more than is thought at first glance.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 7, 2016)

Yeah, I reckon it's like 'showing - telling', completely one or the other is silly, the trick is picking the appropriate one for the occasion.

Mind you,I reckon it was the Simpsons, Little house of horror, that made The Raven memorable


----------



## Absolem (Jan 15, 2017)

I can see that there's no doubt that concrete lines and descriptions are a vitally important to a poems poetic value but there is beauty in abstraction. Sometimes its nice not to be spoon fed and have the interpretation open to want the readers imagination feels fit.


----------



## Robbie (Jun 28, 2018)

Love the Chekhov line.


----------



## cacian (Jun 28, 2018)

Robbie said:


> Love the Chekhov line.


It makes a great opening line for a poem.


----------



## cacian (Jun 28, 2018)

Absolem said:


> I can see that there's no doubt that concrete lines and descriptions are a vitally important to a poems poetic value but there is beauty in abstraction. Sometimes its nice not to be spoon fed and have the interpretation open to want the readers imagination feels fit.


I agree with you. I simply dont seem to have the ability to go for concrete and I am not sure why.:wink:


----------



## SilverMoon (Jun 28, 2018)

> Originally Posted by *Robbie *Love the Chekhov line.


 
Umm, so do I. It's been my Signature for sometime.


----------



## clark (Jun 29, 2018)

In the Republic III and X, Plato argues thru his character, Socrates, that the poet should be denied a place in the realm of the Philosopher King, for poets were "imitators" of Life, hence removed from Truth. . .in fact, detractors of Truth.  Poetry appealed to emotions and had the capacity to inflame passion--the curse of youth--hence deflecting them from rational thought, the avenue to Truth.  Plato did concede that IF those who would champion poetry would do so in prose, with elegance and beauty, they should be granted an audience and listened to with care.  I can't resist pointing out that Plato's most telling argument about the nature of the Real, the True, is the famous "Allegory of the Cave" (can't remember wh Book of the Republic), where he uses a poetic device to argue his point.  Implicit in Plato's objection to poetry is his fear of the concrete poetic image, which is idiosyncratic to the poet's imagination, which in turn is founded on the non-real--the antithesis of Truth.

Theseus' oft-quoted speech in _A Midsummer's Night Dream _argues precisely the opposite position re the image:

The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling
Doth glance from heaven to earth,
From earth to heaven
And, as the imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown
The poet's pen turn them to shapes
And gives to airy nothing 
A local habitation and a name

Here, the magical ability of the poet to seize the things of the world and thru the creative process forge newness, that which 'never was', is PRAISED as consciousness of the highest order.  And certainly Blake's famous pronouncement that it was the poet's job to "see the world in a grain of sand" recognizes that the universal, the abstract, if it is to emerge at all, should emerge _*throug*h_ the concrete, not as its opposite.  That is an error-in-argument we often make in current discussions of Show and Tell.  Abstractions are not 'wrong' in modern poetry; rather, they are usually simply 'lazy', as the Chekov reference shows. "The moon is bright", "I love you with all my heart", "I hate you", "God loves me"--this kind of language simply sends the reader into auto-pilot, deflects them from the stuff and substance of the poem and its story, rather than pulls them in and invites their participation in the poem.

Olly sez, "I am reluctant to dismiss the abstract image because it does not fit modern precepts", and he illustrates in his various renderings of a common subject, that some use of abstractions can produce subtle shifts in impact fueled by different intents on the part of the poet. _The Raven _is intensely concrete in the haunting details, the guts of the story. . .but the eerie refrain, "Nevermore" is an abstraction that works because it seems a distillation, almost concrete in its specific empowerment from the details that precede. 

I avoid abstract images, abstract words, even generalizations in my poetry.  To a fault.  Sometimes I strangle my own creativity, or constipate a concrete image, to avoid an abstract word.  Often I'm right.  But not always. I need to remind myself more often of the summative power of "Nevermore".  William Carlos Williams' famous little wheelbarrow was an iconic call-to-arms which echoes, as it should, in modern concrete imagery.  But let's remember a nod of recognition to the abstraction as it paces to the back of the bus, rather than a sneer.
​


----------



## Robbie (Jun 29, 2018)

This is a very generous and apt post Clark. Thank you so much. I will read many times.


----------



## TL Murphy (Sep 3, 2018)

As Clark says, ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’ are not necessarily opposite.  It may be that abstract concepts are best communicated through concrete imagery. I don’t think “modern preference” has anything to do with the efficacy of concrete imagery in poetry vs. abstraction. The problem with abstraction is that it attempts to _explain_ complex concepts where concrete imagery _illustrates_. Explanation is the realm of academic writing.  It’s expository.  It kills poetry, which is about communication through intuition and emotion. Abstraction turns poetry into an intellectual exercise - it becomes about understanding meaning instead of absorbing meaning. I often see in amature poetry a concrete image presented, then followed with an abstract explanation of the same image. This shows that the poet is concerned about the reader _understanding_ the image, which misses the point of poetry. It isn’t about understanding, it’s about feeling.

None of this is to say that abstraction should be banned from poetry.  There are no rules.  I think many of us on these forums are frustrated by what we see as a school of academic writing that prescribes a kind of militant hegemony over the role of poetry. That is clearly a limited perspective. Abstraction can be used to introduce very broad ideas.  Concrete images make these broads ideas specific.  So it works to compare abstractions to concrete images, “love is a rose”, “heaven is where streets are paved with gold.”  It can be argued, however (and this is where I try to go with my poetry), that the abstract side of the equation presented above is unnecessary.  We can write about roses and streets paved with gold, and the reader intuitively grasps the meaning without having to make intellectual associations imposed by the author. The reader is free to create his own associations, which do not negate the author’s intended meaning, but broaden it.


----------



## clark (Sep 3, 2018)

Tim's post, just above, warrants expansion--this entire ABSTRACT/CONCRETE-in-poetry issue warrants a "permanent" or "ongoing" status in POETRY DISCUSSIONS.  It will NOT be resolved, only deepened and appreciated.  It lies at the core of Poetics, ancient and modern, and the beating heart within that core is the paradoxical nature of the entire issue.  As suggested earlier, Plato wants to explore Appearance "vs" Reality, then chooses  as a committed, rational thinker to use an _allegory _to explain his 'rational thought'. Heraclitus, musing about abstract time as a continuum, rather than engaging in abstract and reasoned arguments, famously pronounced "no man can step into the same river twice".  Jesus of the Gospels, called upon at every turn to answer his Disciples' nagging about God, eternal life, truth, evil. . .(well, they DO go on, don't they?). . .almost invariably uses parables, images, and metaphors, NOT direct rational answers to their seemingly rational questions.  Finally, I'm fond of this from Keats's Letters:  "Coleridge would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the penetralium of mystery because of an irritable reaching after fact and reason."

All of which brings me back to Tim's point (and others on this thread too): "abstract concepts are best communicated through concrete imagery".  We are creatures of limited consciousness and limited ability to grapple successfully with massive abstractions that we insist on putting on the table, and which our greatest thinkers routinely fuck up trying to explain to us. At the risk of being a little glib (just a little. . .) late-18th-Century European intelligentsia should have been a lot more leery than they were when Immanuel Kant called his first Big Book _A Critique of *Pure* Reason [my bold]. . ._less than a decade before Wordsworth and Coleridge wrote the _Preface to the Lyrical Ballads, _arguing the efficacy of Truth discovered through the Imagination.  We've been kicking around the abstract/concrete issue for a loooooooong time. ​
So why ARGUE the issue any further?  There is nothing 'modern' about this discussion at all.  From _The Epic of Gilgamesh (_2500BC?? guesses all over the place)--a Mesopotamian epic pre-dating Homer by about 1000 years.  Generally regarded as the oldest surviving piece of written literature--from Gilgamesh we learn much of ancient beliefs and attitudes about death, the underworld, power, love and loyalty, just some of the abstract concepts which grow OUT OF the concrete images of battle, journey, human interaction, fear, and courage that comprise the adventure.  Portia's speech on Justice in _The Merchant of Venice _is one of the few instances among his 37 plays where a character addresses an abstract issue in mostly 'rational' terms.  All of the other major insights into the Truths of the  human condition which we find in the plays, come to us through the concrete imagery and related actions of the characters themselves. 

So it seems to me the 'movement' of our attention as poets exploring what we're doing, should be to ACCEPT that at very young ages we fumble out way into abstractions.  Parents push or inveigle us to 'love your sister', hate Satan', 'respect the flag'. . .and we go along, only very vaguely having a clue what these Values ARE, but understanding only the _result_ of failing to conform.  We acquire abstractions like marbles, but the marbles are put in a bag for us and we're told never to look at them, and to use them only in darkened rooms.  And so we go through life, saying 'i love you', and 'i hate cowards', and 'that was very brave, and 'he has seen the light' . . . but only dimly do we absorb and fully feel the power of the abstractions themselves.  Closing this with an observation from that wisest of young men, Keats, once again:  "_the axioms of philosophy are not axioms until we feel them on our pulse."_  If poets have a charge or obligation or duty to their readers, at all (and many will argue they do NOT) I think it is to DISCOVER in the disparate concrete objects of life those elusive congruities, perhaps abstractions, that bind the universe into Oneness.  And when readers feel that tingling, that jolt or shock, or an involuntary "wh aaaa. . ." escapes, they are experiencing the RECOGNITION of that unity.  We call it epiphany.

(and I would not call the foregoing Received Truth or even a Tight Argument.  I just call it my Best Shot. . . . .  . . . .today)


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 3, 2019)

I recently bought two books on how to write poetry.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0028641418/?tag=writingforu06-20

I will mention this new book that has some good tips. It gives advice on how to write specific and concrete imagery. To be specific you can consult an encyclopedia and dictionary or thesaurus. That I found to be the most valuable tip. So that you can be write more concrete details when writing be it a poem or a prose work.

I bought a used copy of the above book. Until it gets here I won't be writing poems. That is until both arrive here. It says to write based on the 5 senses. The tips I mentioned should help complete beginners. The below book I bought as an afterthought.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1593373228/?tag=writingforu06-20


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 25, 2019)

Something like 'Wet footprints of sparrows on the veranda' is a concrete image, but it leads one on. You know it is raining, that it is quiet enough that the birds were visiting recently, the fact that there is a veranda implies a dwelling, in a certain sort of place. It seems to me that the concrete and abstract don't really separate in this context.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Aug 16, 2019)

It seems to me finding a dictionary of concrete nouns seems illusive. But the poetry websites that let you search for words can generate concrete nouns in many cases. It seems a roundabout method. But it gets the job done. You get a list of nouns. You decide which is concrete. Then work with that. This seems like a dictionary excercise. Write a word with the dictionary open. I wanted to share this if it makes sense. It may be good or bad advice, I dont know if it is a tip. That's why nouns can be searched and found. I have yet to find a noun generator, that gives me good results. Poets are more precise in finding the right words. Concrete nouns fit that philosophy in mind.


----------



## TL Murphy (Aug 17, 2019)

A general rule of thumb about how to distinguish concrete nouns from abstract nouns is that the concrete tend to be Germanic and the abstract tend to be Latinate. The reason is that German, at the time of English diversion was still a unsophisticated, tribal language, relatively primitive. Words were close to their onomatopoetic roots, meaning, the words tended to sound like what they represented. Latin was a much more sophisticated language at the time of English influence. Latin was the language of world commerce. It had already evolved from it's tribal form to encompass the needs of a broad and diverse empire. This was done largely by adding abstract prefixes and suffixes to root words to expand the potential of each root word and thus cover a wide range of _concepts_. German eventually became more sophisticated after English diversion, but not in the same way as Latin. In modern German, complex concepts tend to be expressed by combining nouns in long, compound words that become increasingly specific, as opposed to the Latin system that makes words more abstract with prefixes and suffixes. Interestingly, this makes modern German a better language to discuss complex ideas than romance languages because of its high degree of specificity.


----------

