Can disregard for Major English "Rules" diminish a piece's poetic expression?

Answer 1

Is this because of my wish for punctuation? Well, let me tell you my own humble opinion.

I dislike the current trend toward punctuationless and formless poems because it makes it too difficult for me to decipher where one thought ends and another begins. When I can't seperate the thoughts, and devine meaning, the poem is worthless to me because it serves no real purpose.

Poetry is a precise style of communication and it is often bastardized in the quest for "poetic freedom."
When one looks at the great poets and sonneteers of the past, it is amazing to see the precision with which they expressed thought and feeling. While there is lots of style and grace in, say, free verse, there is no discipline.

I can see absolutely no reason to completely disregard punctuation, form, and syntax in a poem. Adding a comma does not diminish the style of the poem. And there are instances where omission of punctuation is absolutely brilliant.

For example, John Betjamen's "False Security"

I remember the dread with which I at a quarter past four
Let go with a bang behind me our house front door
And, clutching a present for my dear little hostess tight,
Sailed out for the children's party into the night
Or rather the gathering night. For still some boys
In the near municipal acres were making a noise
Shuffling in fallen leaves and shouting and whistling
And running past hedges of hawthorn, spiky and bristling.
And black in the oncoming darkness stood out the trees
And pink shone the ponds in the sunset ready to freeze
And all was still and ominous waiting for dark
And the keeper was ringing his closing bell in the park
And the arc lights started to fizzle and burst into mauve
As I climbed West Hill to the great big house in the grove,
Where the children's party was and the dear little hostess.
But halfway up stood the empty house where the ghost is.
I crossed to the other side and under the arc
Made a rush for the next kind lamppost out of the dark
And so to the next and the next till I reached the top
Where the grove branched off to the left. Then ready to drop
I ran to the ironwork gateway of number seven
Secure at last on the lamp lit fringe of heaven.
Oh who can say how subtle and safe one feels
Shod in ones children's sandals from Daniel Neal's,
Clad in one's party clothes made of stuff from Heal's?
And who can still one's thrill at the candle shine
On cakes and ices and jelly and blackcurrant wine,
And the warm little feel of my hostess's hand in mine?
Can I forget my delight at the conjuring show?
And wasn't I proud that I was the last to go?
Too overexcited and pleased with myself to know
That the words I heard my hostess's mother employ
To a guest departing, would ever diminish my joy,
I WONDER WHERE JULIA FOUND THAT STRANGE, RATHER COMMON LITTLE BOY?

In this poem, as it's describing his breathless journey to see the little hostess, there are no commas and this, coupled with all the "ands" makes the reader feel the breathlessness and excitement of the protagonist. This is a good thing, indeed.

In most pieces, though, meaning is communicated better with the use of punctuation and "Major English Rules."

For example, Ted Hughes' "The Thought Fox."

I imagine this midnight moment’s forest:
Something else is alive
Beside the clock’s loneliness
And this blank page where my fingers move.

Through the window I see no star:
Something more near

Though deeper within darkness
Is entering the loneliness:

Cold, delicately as the dark snow,
A fox’s nose touches twig, leaf;
Two eyes serve a movement, that now
And again now, and now, and now

Sets neat prints into the snow
Between trees, and warily a lame
Shadow lags by stump and in hollow
Of a body that is bold to come

Across clearings, an eye,
A widening deepening greenness,
Brilliantly, concentratedly,
Coming about its own business
Till, with a sudden sharp hot stink of fox
It enters the dark hole of the head.
The window is starless still; the clock ticks,
The page is printed.

Notice in this piece how the spacing and punctuation further allow the reader to envision the fox, approaching and fleeing, and the quiet awe felt by the protagonist at the way ideas come and retreat.

This is why I think poetry needs punctuation. In order to convey meaning and thought (which is the purpose of all writing), poetry should adhere to the rules of whichever language they're written in because the rules are there to allow for better understanding.

Answer 2

I think there is a line with regard to this issue between bending the rules for an expressive purpose and disregarding them completely. There are times when a poet chooses to punctuate (or not), or capitalize (or not) in an unusual way, but s/he does so because it fits in with the poem's meaning or purpose. The trick to doing so is that the astute reader should be able to not only see what the poet has done, but also understand, if not The reason, at least a potential reason why. This is not a matter of disregarding grammar, but rather of understanding it well enough to make it work in ways a reader might not expect.

A master of this was e.e. cummings; much of what he wrote seems at first glance to have major errors in punctuation and syntax. Upon reading more closely, his brilliance with language comes through. (I know many brilliant people who believe he was a pompous *** who intentionally obfuscated his work, but that is a conversation for another chain.) He did not disregard the rules, but rather used them to make the language work for his poems.

In short (too late?), if a writer is going to choose not to follow conventions of the language in which s/he is writing, that writer should have a discoverable artistic reason for doing so.

Answer 3

If the rules of the language are broken for no purpose, they diminish the poem. If, however, there is a defined stylistic reason the rules are broken, it can serve very well. A good example of this is the poets who write in dialect.

Laziness is not a style, nor is lack of education. One should only break the rules once one has learned them well and can choose to do so effectively.

Answer 4

the rules are there to help smooth communication. As a poet you are trying to communicate things, sometimes in new or different ways. Plenty of the words in our modern english language were made up by poets just sticking words together, and they stuck! Therefore, you don't have to follow the rules. Sometimes subverting or breaking the rules will communicate what you want to say better than staying with the rules.

You learn the rules, then like a raft taking you across a river, you let them go. You don't carry it on your head when you don't need it, but you don't swim when faced with water. Be skillful, not dogmatic.

Answer 5

Short Answer: Yes, but it doesn't have to.

You can play with some punctuation rules or grammar and not diminish your work, but a lot of times you have to be careful that while your reading your work you aren't adding in pauses subconsiously simulating punctuation. If you do that you may not realize that readers are confused by certain ideas you present.

That confusion can diminish the meaning. I see rules more as guidelines, but guidelines that are mostly there for my readers understanding.

Good question, I think about it with every poem I write.

Answer 6

perhaps 'poetic' expression, but certainly not expression itself. for instance, J D Salinger's 'Catcher In The Rye' is full of disregard for the major rules of English, and is considered a masterpiece. It's the same with much of Hunter S Thompson's work, and he is regarded as the father of expressionistic, subjective journalism (Gonzo.)

if anything, it can add to expression, by making a piece connect more immediately with a reader

Answer 7

I think it can detract from the poem's message unless, of course, it's in quotation marks. The poet has a message to convey. Unfortunately, disregard for linguistic rules impinges upon that message.

Answer 8

I once took a class in literature devoted to the study of J. Joyce's "Ulysses" He fractured the language and then ran it through a blender set to puree. The product was sublime.

Answer 9

I like blueoctagons answer, because I think it translates to music as well. break the rules once you know the rules. like in music, disharmony is cool when an artist knows how to make it sound okay.

I think once we've read enough, it's easy to see who's breaking rules effectively and who's breaking rules because they don't know any better.

Answer 10

"English Rules"? you showinistic (damn!) bard, you... what percentage of the population of this valley of tears speak English as native language ???

No it does not, I think, I think that is under the "poetic license" thing you verse pushers have usurped so easily to excuse your lack of intellectual and grammatical discipline...
I have read very beautiful poems which piss on Major English rules... ( Oh, JEEZZZ, I am sorry milady, I apologize and will do penance by being kind to Stooge and by tolerating Penfold, my sincere apologies, milady)... they still speak to my heart... I just want you to know milady I have utmost respect for your mouse(darn!) muse... I find her mysterious, intriguiging and warm to a fault, if a bit fuzzy sometimes, just my most humble opinion...
but then, English is not my first mouthpiece (sorry, milady Major English)...