# Narrative poetry



## midnightpoet (Jul 4, 2017)

I was looking back on some older contests, mainly last year's Grand Poetry Challenge and I noticed some of the judges criticized my narrative poem for not having metaphor - I'm reading that it was more like prose and not "poetic" enough (not judging the judges here, just questions that have occurred to me).  

I know there's a thread on prose poems, but I'm wondering on narrative poems in particular.  Do I need structure, rhyme, metaphor, imagery and so forth to make a narrative poem more poetic?  Or is this just a matter of taste?

I like the narrative/ballad types of poetry because I like telling stories, and it's happened a few times here - sometimes I question myself; is it better to turn this poem into prose or leave it like it is?


----------



## sas (Jul 4, 2017)

Midnight,

Can't wait to read responses. All I know is this: I know it when I read it. Bet you do, too. Now, to define it is quite another matter. "Out, Out" by Robert Frost is considered to be one. 

For me, it must have a poetic theme; or outcome; maybe a yin & yang aspect. 

Thanks for the question.


----------



## clark (Aug 6, 2017)

Oh lords above, below, and sideways--save us all from yet another attempt to 'define' poetry.  You two sidestep it adeptly!  Defining poetry is like bottling smoke in an intense bank of fog.  Let us leave it over there.  I think, however, that I can make one reasonably intelligent (notice the qualifier.  No way I'm running off the end of the plank. . .) statement about narrative poetry:  in narrative poetry, the PROCESS of 'getting there' is as intriguing and absorbing as is arrival at the destination.  Put another way, as reader/hearer you are attracted to the 'telling of the tale' because of the intensity of the mode, as much as you are to the parameters of the story line and its conclusion.  Poems as diverse in story and 'theme' as The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, The Lady of Shallot, and The Shooting of Dan McGrew are unquestionably poems FIRST because their poetics are dominant throughout.  And if that reasoning seems tautological that's only because the reasoning is tautological . . . and always will be when it comes to any kind of discussion about 'what is poetry?'  Of parallel intrigue are stories that are certainly 'stories' first (because you're eagerly turning pages in the grips of what I call the 'and then. . .and then. . .and then principle) but written with such poetic flair that you want to pause frequently in admiration: Dylan Thomas's A Child's Christmas in Wales, Cormac McCarhy's All the Pretty Horses.  Still, in those two examples, the elements of Story dominate.  This post is skilfully structured to obfuscate Midnightpoet's original question to the max.


----------



## midnightpoet (Aug 6, 2017)

Thanks, Clark; you've hit on the crux of the problem - I should have told the critiquer who claimed my narrative poem wasn't poetic enough to go fly a kite.:icon_cheesygrin:  Actually I agree with you, we've had way too many discussions on defining poetry.  

I do second guess myself at times, and I was curious.  Usually I expect rhymes or at least rhythm and cadence.  Similes, metaphors, and such.  Basically I know it when I read it.  

I'm telling a story in poetic form and I have to remember everyone has an opinion but no one is perfect either - take what advice you think will work and ignore the rest.  Even though you send a poem to 20 publishers with no luck doesn't mean it's the end - even Kipling was originally panned.


----------



## clark (Aug 6, 2017)

Kipling is a superb example, Midnight (does that mean yer a nightowl too?  Sometimes I start writing at 10 PM and continue writing until breakfast (fortunately--or unfortunately, depending on which need isn't being satisfied--I don't have a wife to nag me), because he's a consummate yarn-spinner with a superb stylistic flair, occasionally poetic.  My father had a multi-volume complete works of Kipling, and from my age 3 until about 12 he read to me, sometimes for _hours,_ and I've 'listened' for da beat in novelists ever since.  that's why I love Cormac McCarthy's style so much.  I wrote a poem about Dad reading Kipling to me.  You might enjoy it.  I'll send it to you as a PM.


----------



## midnightpoet (Aug 7, 2017)

Thanks, Clark - I've used Midnightpoet in various forms (Midnitepo8, MidniteRider) for over 40 years.  Originally I coined it because I thought it was cool, but lately I often do wake up in the middle of the night several times for various reasons and I've done a good bit of writing that way.

Kipling has always been a favorite, as well as Burns, Poe, Sandberg, and many others.


----------



## Darkkin (Aug 7, 2017)

One aspect that is being overlooked about metaphors in narrative poetry is the fact that it is the readers and not the writer who ultimately determine whether or not they are reading a metaphor.  The writer's intentions, while entirely their own, become a moot point once a piece is in the hands of the readers.  As a literal writer I understand this on an unusual level.  Numerous times readers have found metaphors within the fairy tales and nonsense I specialize in.  As a writer, my intent and the reader's takeaways are two very different things.  I tell the story and what the reader detemines what it means to them is entirely shaped by their perceptions.  It is part of what make the why behind various critiques so intriguing to read.

To flip the issue of metaphors on its head, I've encountered the opposite problem...A narrative poem written merely for the sake of the story.  No greater meaning intended yet critique came back saying the metaphors were too deep.    The piece was imbued with profound meaning it never possessed and was not taken as the overt nonsense that it was written to be.  As such much of a poem's meaning is decided by the reader and their mindset.  Readers who request a why as to a writer's intentions usually get a more rounded picture than those who don't.

The reader has their own set of ideas as does the writer.

- D. the T.


----------



## clark (Aug 20, 2017)

Darkkin -- yes, of course, the reader is always the oft-overlooked third component in the piece, whether poem or fiction, and in any genre of either.  Once the writer has released the piece to the world, individual readers will bring their life experiences to their 'sense' of the piece, and the writer has no control whatever over the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the 'sense', vis-à-vis the writer's intent.  I am puzzled, nonetheless, by one of your statements, in the first sentence:  ". . .it is the readers and not the writer who ultimately determine whether or not they are reading a metaphor."  Structurally, a metaphor is a metaphor, is it not?  "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" or "call her one, me another fly/We're tapers too and at our own cost die".  Within the structure of the poems, in those two examples, metaphor definitely being _used._  The reader cannot deny its literal presence.  The mercurial quality of metaphor--as you point out well, later in your post-- comes in when the reader assigns _value_​ to the metaphor, value that might differ dramatically from the writer's intent.


----------



## Darkkin (Aug 20, 2017)

As a literal translator, I don't write or look for metaphors.  I do not understand them.  'Subject A implies meaning Q.'  An object is the sum of its parts within its context, not a complex commentary of the human condition.  It is why things like philosophy seem a bit pointless.(It is akin to a Vulcan appreciation of humour.  'It is a difficult concept.')   It is a personal failing from the reader's (my standpoint), not the writer's.  The majority of readers get the metaphors, but some will not.  As such, it is the reader who determines if they are reading a metaphor, as not all readers have the capacity to extrapolate the extended meaning of an author's intention.  Not everyone has the ability to determine the 'value' of a metaphor.  As such it remains a simple sentence.

e.g.

 Sadness = Blue giraffe. A metaphor, yet there is no congruency between the idea and the object.  Where is the logic that supports the parallels?  The argument presented, well the writer intended to portray depression and sadness.  What about the fourth wall?  How do you know?  Is there supplementary text to support the writer's intent?  No?  Hmm, the reader just has to accept that this is what it is supposed to mean, without thought, without question? If confirmation comes from the writer via a reply or an interview, that is evidence.  Without it, why does a reader have to accept another reader's translation of the text?  That is an opinion.  I've spent enough time crossreferencing whys to truly appreciate the value of an author's reasonings.

A subtle narrative has the power to evoke parallels without having to work at it.  Rowling does this well with Harry Potter.  As screwed up as it is, I can see the parallels she draws within the fictionalized realms to those throughout history, more specifically those pervasive in society through the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's, as well as those of today.  _Neurotribes:  A History of Autism_ by Steve Silberman does an amazing job of illustrating the same issues from a historical and psychological standpoint.  Fiction and nonfiction running parallel on separate, yet even planes.  An illustration of String Theory.  Story to fact.  It comes down to how well the story as a whole demonstrates the conguency through a medium that keeps the reader's attention and imparts a lesson.  How much has it made the reader think?   It isn't about a metaphor, but the pieces supporting the whole. Systemic parallels within a linear construct, those make sense if context supports the idea.  If the context doesn't line up, if an argument does not provide empirical evidence...Well, a person has a right to an opinion and the evidence is the difference between an opinion and a fact.  Good narratives draw clear parallels for the reader, something that is relatable, not obfusticated by an overindulgence of symbolism.

If people draw a parallel, it is their right to do so, but if a writer's intent is story for the sake of story, how is the reader to know?  More crucially, does the reader care about the author's intent?  Outside of academia, how many readers stop and ask: Is this idea what the writer intended?  I know other writers write in metaphor, but as my brain structure does not allow for the processing and appreciation of metaphoric profoundity.  Does it impair my skill and understanding as a writer, a reader.  No doubt.

'No two persons ever read the same book.'  A quote by Edmund Wilson.  Some narratives have taught the unteachable, those deemed less because they do not think in a 'normal' fashion.  A lesson learned through the journey and struggles of another's eyes.  Lessons taught by empathy, not overt symbolism.  It is the story told in a piece called _Necessary Ink_.  _Hero of a Thousand Faces_ gives voice to this way of learning; it is the corner stone of storytelling and has been around far longer than the delineated parameters of the modern metaphor.

Good narratives tempt us to linger, to think, fostering tangents within the ideas, not limiting a meaning to a turn of phrase.  It is the whole theory and practice issue.  Theory is great, but it is inert.  Just as philosophy, while it can be interesting, never comes to a resolution, it just keeps spinning in circles.  Yet my nephew (aged 5) understands the lesson of _The __Glass Girl,_ as well as those found in _The Journeys of Violet Bright_. These are fairy tales, narrative poems written for the sake of the story, not a metaphor to be had.  A practical application of a narrative poem.  Does it mean that metaphors count for less, certainly not.  But dissertation of metaphors like philosophy is passive, whereas a narrative that keeps the reader sunk in the mind of a character's plight is active within the reader's mind and emotions.  Which lesson is going to stay with the reader longer?  It depends on the individual.

Still to do something a simple as taking a known idiom and make it literal, to give it a face, a name.  To allow a reader to empathize with a character instead of a turn of phrase.

e.g.

A whipping boy, a scapegoat, and a scapegrace gives rise to _The Whipping Goat._ 

And idiotic, unseen fear, something that has a name, but doesn't seem to exist much like an extinct species.  You have evidence, but no present proof  =  _Terror of the Dodo_.

A being overlooked, small statured, prickly in personality, yet vociferious of voice when the ocassion calls for it  =  _The Roaring Hedgehogs_

Systemic parallels told through narratives.  Literal embodiments of foolish ideas...A practical application of narrative poetry written without thought for what the reader might take away from it.  A writer telling a story for the sake of the story.  In this case, if metaphors are found, they are determined entirely by the reader, not by the author.

To whit:

Lit and the Metafour:  Spine of the Dragon


Follow it South, a great spine of ruptured earth, shielding the sea, a wild wall,
between the secrets and the known, wonders kept in the shadow of the stones.
Go, child.  Trace a dragon’s back, heed the echoes, find the source of the call.

Trace the ridges, look for the grove where Monkey Puzzles Trees lord over all.
And there, within a dell it dwells, a beast, the source of the world’s blue tones.
Follow it South, a great spine of ruptured earth, shielding the sea, a wild wall.

Feeding on the dew of stars an Azure Pygmy Giraffe, standing three feet tall.
Due to his colour some assume he embodies sadness for he wanders alone.
Go, child.  Trace a dragon’s back, heed the echoes, find the source of the call.

But how can all the sea hues, the heart of the skies, fit on a creature so small?
Well, consider each blue, sky to sea to stone, the secret rests within his bones.
Follow it South, a great spine of ruptured earth, shielding the sea, a wild wall.

He is a creature of pure truth, a literal embodiment, the truest nonsense of all.
Literal, the Azure Pygmy Giraffe of the Monkey Puzzle dell, a wonder honed.
Go, child.  Trace a dragon’s back, heed the echoes, find the source of the call.

But know, Lit while small, is guarded by a Metafour, the oddest oddity of all.
A lynx some say.  A puma?  No way.   Just a stray cat of speckled fog tones.
Follow it South, a great spine of ruptured earth, shielding the sea, a will wall.
Go, child.  Trace a dragon’s back, heed the echoes, find the source of the call.



Consider what the world would look like without any blues.  Remove the source and all the hues are affected.  No blue, you have no purples or greens either.  It is a primary colour.  A weird perspective, but the effects of a loss of blue from the spectrum is proven by science.  One small thing, huge impact.  Literal is the literal embodiment of all blue and his removal from the world would have profound consequences.  That parallel makes way more sense than saying Sadness = Blue Giraffe.  As for the Metafour, well, no two people looking at it will ever see the same thing.  All that is agreed upon is the colour and that it is a cat of some sort.  Will most readers garner that idea from the poem?  Probably not because it is garrishly literal and it is only one piece of a shoddy story.  It is also part of the reason that the larger a narrative is the more intricate their lessons become.  If done well readers will follow a tale deeper and deeper into the _Hero's Journey._ 

  And yet to someone who is colorblind this reasoning makes no sense at all because they have no concept of colour...But in this case it is the concept of the metaphor (Subject A = Meaning O).  The concept fails to register as it should, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions.  Yet they still have the capacity to ask for clarification.  So how does one explain blue?  Explain the concept of colour, its billions of hues and shadings to eyes that are inherently, irreparably monochrome.  Easy, right?

So how does one explain an impossible, wrong footed perspective to a normal world?  I try in the way that I relate to it, through stories.  Meaning through the piece as a whole.  A work around for the total absence of all colour.  (And until one has had to deal with these fundamental work arounds, please do not assume someone is being deliberately obtuse.  It is because no one can understand that one does not have the capacity to 'see',  muchless comprehend blue.) Can it be quantified as narrative poetry, as it is a story told in verse, yes, but qualitywise it is an entirely different matter.  It's function is simple though, to draw in the reader just enough to make them glance things from a different perspective if only for just a moment.  It isn't about profound meaning; it is about the empathy.

I'm wondering if I'm wasting my time trying to write when I cannot attach a 'value' to a metaphor...:apathy:





- D. the T.


----------



## LeeC (Aug 20, 2017)

MP
Hey, someone after my own tastes. I don't pay much attention to dogma as it changes to suit others needs, but I do know what I like to read. I've a couple suggestions to offer that might help settle your mind. The first is to read Jen's second published collection "Windfalls", specifically “The Great Japanese Earthquake of 1923.” The second, and more up "our" ally is Baxter Black's "The Buckskin Mare." A long time favorite of mine.


----------



## Darkkin (Aug 20, 2017)

LeeC said:


> MP
> Hey, someone after my own tastes. I don't pay much attention to dogma as it changes to suit others needs, but I do know what I like to read. I've a couple suggestions to offer that might help settle your mind. The first is to read Jen's second published collection "Windfalls", specifically “The Great Japanese Earthquake of 1923.” The second, and more up "our" ally is Baxter Black's "The Buckskin Mare." A long time favorite of mine.



_The Buckskin Mare_ is a very specific type of narrative poetry.  Cowboy poetry known for its simplicity and inherent musical qualities, not a surfeit of metaphors.  A.J. Patterson's _The Man from Snowy River_ is of a very similar tone.  My uncle loves the genre and I've gone with him to a few local readings.  Many times a guitar as been involved, an idle strumming heard in the background lending cadence to the pieces presented.

Take into consideration, the origins (the history) of the genre.  Cattle drives.  A huge contingent of cowboys at the time had limited education.  It began as an oral tradition.  A way to soothe the herds and pass the time.  They spoke of the world as they experienced it.  Pretty straight forward.

Narrative poetry, by its definition tells a story.  How much of its meaning, its value should, can be determined by metaphors?  Storytelling is about the journey, not the conclusions.


----------



## LeeC (Aug 21, 2017)

Darkkin said:


> _The Buckskin Mare_ is a very specific type of narrative poetry.  Cowboy poetry known for its simplicity and inherent musical qualities, not a surfeit of metaphors.  A.J. Patterson's _The Man from Snowy River_ is of a very similar tone.  My uncle loves the genre and I've gone with him to a few local readings.  Many times a guitar as been involved, an idle strumming heard in the background lending cadence to the pieces presented.
> 
> Take into consideration, the origins (the history) of the genre.  Cattle drives.  A huge contingent of cowboys at the time had limited education.  It began as an oral tradition.  A way to soothe the herds and pass the time.  They spoke of the world as they experienced it.  Pretty straight forward.
> 
> Narrative poetry, by its definition tells a story.  How much of its meaning, its value should, can be determined by metaphors?  Storytelling is about the journey, not the conclusions.


Well pardon me mam  Seriously though, what's your line on Jen's narrative poetry, a whole different critter or what? To me it tells stories all the same, and damn good ones. Do you 'spose I like narrative poetry because, as you say, it's storytelling, not just being clever with words?

And as to cowboys' education, my perspective is there's a big difference between education and intelligence that isn't restricted to any walk of life. Don't get me wrong, I get your drift and I'm not offended. The wife commonly introduces me as "the cowboy that came east for an education and it didn't take."  One reason for that is I wasn't into the butterfly collectors narrow perspective of natural history.

Take care


----------



## midnightpoet (Aug 21, 2017)

Thanks, everyone, wasn't intending on causing a ruckus.  From the comments, I'm sure it's a matter of taste - I'm telling a story in verse; I do think imagery is important, it lends to the overall flavor.  As does voice - Robert Service and Longfellow sound different.  I don't think metaphor is absolutely necessary, but my "cowboy" poem "A Cowboy's Valentine" is pure metaphor.  Cadence, rhythm and rhyme all combine to tell a story in a way prose cannot.  

I realize some, like Darkkin, don't use metaphor but it does not mean it's not useful.  I see no reason for the poet not to use all the weapons in his/her arsenal.  Just because you don't like something is no reason to dismiss it as useless.  

I do think that metaphor increases the likelihood of the poem being misinterpreted, but that's not a bad thing.  People read poetry to be entertained, and to give them a view of the world they may not have thought of.  It makes them think - and Lord, do we need to think and discuss and try to solve problems - not make them worse.


----------



## Darkkin (Aug 21, 2017)

LeeC said:


> Well pardon me mam  Seriously though, what's your line on Jen's narrative poetry, a whole different critter or what? To me it tells stories all the same, and damn good ones. Do you 'spose I like narrative poetry because, as you say, it's storytelling, not just being clever with words?
> 
> And as to cowboys' education, my perspective is there's a big difference between education and intelligence that isn't restricted to any walk of life. Don't get me wrong, I get your drift and I'm not offended. The wife commonly introduces me as "the cowboy that came east for an education and it didn't take."  One reason for that is I wasn't into the butterfly collectors narrow perspective of natural history.



Theory and pratice.  Narratives started as a practice, a need to impart information and pass the time. And while  education gives formal structure to the practice, it is the practice that is responsible for the formative development of the storytelling skill.  Hands on experience is a priceless teacher.  Education wasn't a defining factor, merely a historical commonality of that time.  Survival was a bit more important...  Look at narrative poetry as say, the Hound Group and Cowboy poetry as the Golden Retriever breed standard.  A very specific example of greater whole, a greater whole we are aware is out there.

As to Jen's work I will have to delve into it a bit more.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 24, 2017)

I think this has to do with the topic. But I am studying a book that believes that narrative poetry should be practiced by writers because well it shows conflict. Not just because someone would love to write lush prose. You see there are two possible arguments on why to study it. Not excluding it as a source of inspiration but including it. Studying, reading, and even writing it. Remember when I asked my question a while back. Well it's not to say both are kind of like cousins for a bad simile. I am studying the book called practicing creative writing by heather sellers 3rd edition. Since I like its approach, I am thinking of investing in narrative poetry and its methods to get inspired and to write them. Narrative poetry includes conflict and tension or the thermostat metaphor that once created it must be released as tension. It has a poetry book it recommends for poetry writing that is narrative which I forgot a lot about, but doesn't study lyric poetry in depth. It makes a possible argument to study lyric poetry but narrative is where it focuses.


----------



## dannyboy (Oct 10, 2017)

Perhaps metaphor is not based on logic, perhaps its based on analogical thought.  Logic is oppositional A is A and not B whereas in analogical thought I can say A is A and is also B (a blue giraffe can be a metaphor for sadness if I construct - or our society has already constructed, "my love is like a red red rose" an analogy for this to be the case) So something can be both hard and soft not either hard or soft...I think.

as to the first point - mostly I get told me poetry is too narrative, not poetic enough - and that's fine.


----------



## clark (Oct 11, 2017)

No Darrkin, you aren't "wasting your time", certainly not on me, at any rate.  I thoroughly enjoyed your post and its extensive example.  But you ARE giving me the history of Swiss watchmaking when all I wanted was the time.  Your post is concerned with what _happens _to the metaphor once it hits the reader's mind.  What _value _the reader might assign to the metaphor. and the unavoidable fact that he/she might catch a value very different than the poet threw.  Of course.  Such is the nature of communication-at-large, never mind metaphor.  But that was not my concern.  My concern was that you were saying the reader could DENY that "it" was a metaphor at all.  What if a reader decided that in this image/metaphor-- "she floats like a feather/in a beautiful world", "floats" means "stomped" and just because the reader hates feathers of every kind, further decides that she just stomped forward and there was nothing "beautiful" about the world anyway?  Even then, the metaphor, as a recognized figurative use of language, still EXISTS. Humpty Dumpty declares, "when I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less."  Nobody buys that.  Down that road lies linguistic nihilism and the death of communication.  Metaphor exists.  It may enhance, add beauty, be an inroad to truth, it may confuse, infuriate, even muddle meaning. . .or clarify it.  Plato feared it (then used it in his most famous illustration of theory), YOU used it in your last post:  "flip the issue of metaphors on its head," and it is engrained in the colloquial currency of English itself.

Hell, man--maybe you're right:  we're just wasting our time here.  But it's fun, and your posts have send my head back into the nature of this particular aspect of language.  So at minimum, we're all getting to play in the sandbox with the toys we love the most.


----------



## clark (Oct 13, 2017)

I have read Darkkin's post #9 with great interest and enjoyment a number of times.  The first paragraph of that post ends thus: "Not everyone has the ability to determine the 'value' of a metaphor.  As such it remains a simple sentence."  And this detailed post ends in a query: I'm wondering if I'm wasting my time trying to write when I cannot attach a 'value' to a metaphor...:apathy:." So the whole post could be viewed as a 'sandwich' around my post #8, which concludes: "The mercurial quality of metaphor comes in. . . when the reader assigns _value_​ to the metaphor, value that might differ dramatically from the writer's intent."

Oh dear.  I think this minor, but nonetheless valuable, dust-up may have been caused by the sense in which I meant the word 'value'.  What I was trying to get at is that what a poet intends in a metaphor--the 'value' he/she assigned to the metaphor when it was created--and what 'value' a reader takes from that metaphor, may be quite different.  In using 'value', I was trying to avoid the word/concept 'meaning', which always leads to quagmires of misunderstanding in discussions of literature. Darkkin went to some lengths to challenge my proposition, which I now see may have been sloppily phrased, even confusing.  If so, my apologies.  Let me try another approach.  If a reader reads a metaphor as "a simple sentence", that is--if I'm understanding the point--literally does not even SEE the metaphor or denies the EXISTENCE of the metaphor, then yes, we have a serious problem.  It is one thing to say "I do not understand the comparison 'sadness = blue giraffe', because this 'blue' is completely unknown to me, hence how can I transfer a value I don't even comprehend back to something I do?"  That statement makes perfect sense.  It is quite another thing to say "because I have no concept of 'blue' I deny the existence of this comparison, this --what do you call it?--this 'metaphor' thing."  Can a user of a language simply deny legitimate components of the language, because they do not, or have not yet, experienced those components?  An infant begins speech with nouns. . .but verbs and prepositions 'exist', waiting to be discovered.  A reader/hearer may not comprehend 'blue', so a metaphor containing 'blue' will not be understood, but other metaphors may be readily available.

So let's move on.  I think the bone of contention [M] here is not with metaphor as an aspect of creative writing, it is with metaphor as an instrument of writer indulgence or content obfuscation.  I carry no brief [M] for metaphors of that kind.  That's just bad writing, whether in story, poem, or whatever.  Any tricky metaphoric turn of phrase or image that merely shows how teddibly clever the poet or storyteller is, is just aggrandizement; any metaphor that is so dense the narrative comes to an abrupt stop while the reader tries to sort out its parts vis-à-vis the 'plot or story at that point, contributes nothing but, perhaps, reader intimidation; any metaphor that requires the reader to scurry into the Bible, arcane studies of Zuni myths, and Asimov on the creation of the universe, to get a handle [M] on the damned thing, is simply infuriating.  Bad writing. But what of a metaphor, _embedded_ _in narrative context, _that enriches and enhances that moment in the story--"_he shot up the tree, an eager weasel in pursuit of a frantic squirre_l, to grab. . ."  The reader knows the character is not a weasel and whatever he's after is not a squirrel, but the description is intensely vivid and heightens that moment in the story.  Now, granted, the writer is assuming the reader knows a little something about weasels--is that the problem?  That most metaphors depend on the readers' prior knowledge about the elements in the metaphor?  Or that different readers may have had different experiences with the elements of the metaphor and may misconstrue the metaphor completely?  Yes.  That could be a problem.  Metaphors depend on _context  _for their immediate impact and for their significance in the whole fabric [M] of the story.  They should be used judiciously and accurately.

I'll stop for now.  I'm enjoying this, but I'm a little uneasy that I still might not have fully grasped the nature of the objection to metaphor.  I hope someone else will pickup on any flaws in my argument and contribute.  Good conversation.

PS -- I meant to add a comment on Darkkin's query--does the reader really give a hoot [M] about the writer's intent, in using a metaphor or n any other aspect of a story?  Not at all.  If the story is well-written, the reader is IN THERE and couldn't care less what the writer intended.


----------



## TL Murphy (Dec 15, 2019)

I'm interested in this discussion so I thought I would grapple with a few elements that have risen.  I will try to do so simply, saying less than more, which should allow for more discussion.

"Narrative" does not equal "prose." A narrative poem is not necessarily a prose poem and a prose poem is not necessarily narrative.  To narrate means to tell a story.  So a narrative is a story-poem but it can be written in very poetic, figurative language and does not have to use a prose format. At the same time, a poem written in prose format can wind all over the place and never tell a story. This is what drives so many people crazy about much of John Ashbury's poetry. His poem's are prose poems, but if your read them for the story, you will lose your mind.  It looks like there is a story there, but there isn't.  There are loose associations that build mood and emotion, but there's no story.

Point number two, a story-poem or a  prose poem can use metaphor just like any other form of poetry. Even entire novels are metaphors.  _Moby Dick_ is a metaphor. _The Heart of Darkness _is a metaphor. These are called "conceits" where the whole story or poem is one big metaphor. Where Clark  uses "value" to assign significance to metaphor, I like to use the word "association." A metaphor is a concrete image (a whale or a river) that we can associate with abstract ideas (concepts).  It is the context of the poem that builds that association.  It doesn't matter what form that context is conveyed in. By writing in concrete imagery, we develop _myths _which _refer_ to reality rather than trying to _explain_ reality itself, which is the realm of science and philosophy, not poetry. But now I'm getting into another topic.


----------



## Darren White (Dec 15, 2019)

I'm keeping it simple here, for my own sake 
And I will leave out all sorts of famous poetry.
Narrative poetry is very difficult to write. I've only recently begun writing it. The pitfall is, that you are indeed inclined to write a piece of prose, including all redundant phrases and words. But that's not what it is at all.

I used to write (and often still do) minimalist. I must however admit that writing narrative poetry gives me much more satisfaction. It's telling a story with all the poetic devices in place. It's making sure to not fall into lengthy descriptions. But tell a complete story in a relatively small piece of prose-like text.

Well, that's a rickety explanation, you'll have to believe me on my word


----------



## clark (Dec 15, 2019)

I would strongly recommend that WF members new to writing poetry, but keen to learn more, read this entire thread. It is a solid discussion on metaphor-as-language-use, not just its place among poetic 'devices.' And in different posts by different poets, the important (and oft-neglected) issue of _reader-interception _of metaphors is introduced. Various views are expressed, but not explored thoroughly--a shortfall that subsequent contributors might like to remedy.

Just a quick note: poetry primers and many dictionaries and 'grammars' often declare that a SIMILE is a comparison of two things, using either 'like' or 'as', whereas a METAPHOR is a comparison of two things _without_​ the use of 'like' or 'as'. These are not just limited or overly simplified 'definitions' of two elements of language--they are grossly misleading and, where poetry is concerned, quite incorrect. That's all I have time for right now. I'll try to come back later to elaborate.


----------



## PiP (Dec 15, 2019)

> TL Murphy said:
> 
> 
> > "Narrative" does not equal "prose." A narrative poem is not necessarily a prose poem and a prose poem is not necessarily narrative.  To narrate means to tell a story.  So a narrative is a story-poem but it can be written in very poetic, figurative language and does not have to use a prose format.
> ...


----------



## TL Murphy (Dec 15, 2019)

”Why is Moby Dick a metaphor?”

Carol, _Moby Dick _is a conceit, meaning the whole novel is a metaphor.  The whale represents _obsession. _Obsession is a huge concept that we could write volumes about.  One could say that the entire field of Psychology is built around trying to understand obsession. But Moby Dick nails it. In the end, the whale destroys Ahab and everyone that Ahab drags into his twisted world, which is a small ship on a vast ocean.  Despite Ahab’s impenetrable character, he is weak and vulnerable to his own obsession.  The fact that the whale is a powerful, miscoloured beast that swims below the surface of a deep submarine world and is only seen if brief, terrifying moments, is the context which builds the whale into a destructive, unconscious urge.


----------



## clark (Dec 15, 2019)

Some Dramatic Monologues--many in the Browning canon--are unquestioned Story from beginning to end, and are absolutely considered poetry in which there is virtually NO "poetry" or images, concrete or otherwise, no direct metaphors--but volumes have been written on the_ whole poem being a metaphor_ for . . . . .da! da! . . . . .enter the reader/overhearer. I think there is little doubt that Herman Melville had some pretty clear symbolic levels that he consciously built into the novel, but I can save myself from sliding into the error of the Intentional Fallacy . . .because I have the text of the novel to work with. MY sense of the sea, of animals-as-symbols, of the American frontier, of humankind's capacity for and will to conquer evil . . .and on and on we go. . . .will weave thru the text as I read. The working limits of this amazing work of art are as much constrained and enabled by the reader's imagination and life experience as they are by the novel. Which, _en pasante_ , I regard as the greatest American novel ever written.

DMs are an excellent platform from which to explore the related issues of narrative, story, imagery, metaphor, and 'poetics'. I used to congratulate myself that I knew what "poetics" _meant, _but the older I get the more I am convinced that 'poetics' is a rubric under which readers and writers list stuff that _comprises _'POETICS", but the term itself still eludes understanding, because the glue that cements all the bits together is _within _the individual reader. It is not unlike handing a plastic sheet, a bunch of thin prongs connected at a central hub, a length of 3/8" metal tubing split length- wise, and a plastic handle and saying, "Here, use this stuff. It will keep the rain off." Many--maybe most--receivers living in Vancouver, will instantly see the umbrella 'buried' in all the bits; most receivers from central Australia, probably not; structural engineers should 'see' the umbrella more readily than most  dietary specialists. But if the receiver uses all the bits of stuff to come up with something new and useable . . would anyone complain? Only if it was URGENT that anyone working with this handful of 'bits' quickly perceives it is supposed to be an umbrella. Were that the case, however, the 'bits' would come with an INSTRUCTION sheet and clear ILLUSTRATIONS of the finished product. And that ain't art. That's definition and production.


----------



## clark (Dec 15, 2019)

Quick observation about Tim on _Moby Dick_ --"the whole novel is a metaphor"--even though specific sections of MD may seem utterly disassociated with any metaphor, extended or otherwise. So, in a longer work, parts of it may seem irrelevant or peripheral at best, but such maverick elements may need the reader's comprehension of the whole book before their place clicks into place. In MD, for example, there is a long, dry, scientific section on Cetology. . .and (for me) it seemed an intrusion on the action of the novel. Only when I'd read the entire book did that section abruptly click into place. I'm confident it clicked into a place--at that moment of understanding--peculiar to me. Those kinds of 'clicks' are part of the epiphany readers experience in Art.


----------



## PiP (Jan 2, 2020)

Today I received notification of a poem published on Rattle. I read it, reread it and then wondered ... :scratch:
why this piece was classed as poetry
https://www.rattle.com/

https://www.rattle.com/how-to-care-for-your-american-mastodon-by-christina-olson/?
*HOW TO CARE FOR YOUR AMERICAN MASTODON*
_Christina Olson

Is this a prose poem? After reading the 'poem', I was errr.... lost for words. Obviously I can't reproduce even part of it here due to copyright issues

If you want to quote parts of the poem by way of reference for discussion, please do so by PM. cheers 

_


----------



## clark (Jan 3, 2020)

1] Finding this "Mastadon" piece in a prestigious poetry journal is indicative of the nervous fidgeting, toe-tapping, and downright confusion that prevails at ALL levels of poetic depth and critical acumen re WHAT-IS-A-POEM. PC muddies the waters further, because no one wants to be accused of regressing to an "old" standard or failing to welcome a "new".....err.....ah......possibility(?). Everything must be given a chance, an open 'recognition'--even if you do not have a clue what you're 'recognizing.' It's like being put in a room full of naked entities. One is a gorgeous, enticing human of the 'sex' that excites you (see how cautious I'm being!), one is a large pig, one is an amorphous blob of flesh with three eyes and ganglia instead of arms, one is a disc-like figure with seven eyes, built-in wheels and a strange spot at one end that changes from a slit-like opening to a projectile to a slit-like opening to a......you get the picture. The proctors that put you in the room then announce: "you have 30 minutes to select your partner for the evening. Sleeping alone is NOT an option." I won't labor the analogy. Right now, we have about 12 options that call themselves poetry and will zap you with scorn and derision if you dare to stick to what you know, what you're comfortable with, and deny the other Forms the recognition they tell you they deserve.  Might as well blame it on Andy Warhol (as good a 'starting' point as any!). His Campbell Soup paintings 58 years ago (1962) jolted the perceptions of viewers as much as they ushered in an alternative 'pop culture' icon for artists.

But try as I might, the only vaguely 'poetic' quality I can see in the Mastadon thing is if you view it as cynical satire, that is. . . . "here, you schmucks, I threw this piece of shit at a poetry journal and it actually accepted it for publication!" Next time I go to a restaurant, I think I'll take the detailed bill, make a few hand-written comments of rage on it, then send it all over as a 'poem' . . .But rather than indignation, we're probably further ahead to embrace all of these so-called kinds of 'poetry'--perhaps even write some of our own--and ride the wave on its ragged course towards a distant shore. In business they say, "just let it go. The market will always find its own level." Or this: "Ya cain't always git what you want. . .ya cain't always git what you want . . .ya cain't always git what you want . . .but if ya try sometimes . . .ya git what ya NEED." Just keep writing what YOU need to write, and try not to get too concerned with the chaos that swirls around us. It'll sort itself out.

You wrote: "


----------



## PiP (Jan 3, 2020)

Thank you Clark 



clark said:


> But try as I might, the only vaguely 'poetic' quality I can see in the Mastadon thing is if you view it as cynical satire, that is. . . . "here, you schmucks, I threw this piece of shit at a poetry journal and it actually accepted it for publication!" Next time I go to a restaurant, I think I'll take the detailed bill, make a few hand-written comments of rage on it, then send it all over as a 'poem' . . .But rather than indignation, we're probably further ahead to embrace all of these so-called kinds of 'poetry'--perhaps even write some of our own--and ride the wave on its ragged course towards a distant shore. In business they say, "just let it go. The market will always find its own level." Or this: "Ya cain't always git what you want. . .ya cain't always git what you want . . .ya cain't always git what you want . . .but if ya try sometimes . . .ya git what ya NEED." Just keep writing what YOU need to write, and try not to get too concerned with the chaos that swirls around us. It'll sort itself out.
> 
> You wrote: "



So as it has no poetic quality she is riding on past reputation? After reading your comment (and you are an experienced poet) I bet if either of us had submitted this poem it would not have made it from the bottom of the slush pile.

Moving on ... is this a prose poem, narrative poem or what?


----------



## clark (Jan 3, 2020)

For me, it is not any kind of poem. It is declarative, expository, informative, linear. The province of prose. And that's all. Maybe its larger context opens up some kind of 'poetic' nexus? I don't know.


----------



## TL Murphy (Jan 3, 2020)

The footnote at the bottom of the Mastodon poem says it is a excerpt from Rattle's 2019 Chapbook winner.  So there is a larger context that the piece is part of.  That doesn't make it any more poetic but poetry sometimes includes sections of prose.  But I would not put too much store in what Rattle defines as a poem.  As far as I can tell, they accept any definition of poetry.  Their chief concern is mass readership and their main competitor is the internet which democratizes everything. It seems to me that it's pretty hard to get a poem into Rattle that isn't prose and narrative.  Welcome to the world of populist poetry. Don't try to justify it or understand it.  I don't understand Rattle's standard.  I don't think they have one, other than being "contemporary, " whatever that means.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jan 4, 2020)

And I've noticed many of the journals  and poetic sites have vague comments like "cutting edge"  in their preferences, whatever that means. Just keep writing and sending them out and ignore such comments? In any case, my "contemporary" was 40 years ago. :icon_joker:


----------

