Skip to main content

"Out in the bush is silence now: Savannah seas have islands now"

Jane Holland has an interesting short post on rhyme on her blog at the moment, and it got me thinking about rhyme being this really transformative element in a poem, something, as she puts it, 'which launches the poem off into space', and, when used to its fullest potential, can make a poem truly moving, provocative and memorable. And it also made me think about Mick Imlah's work, something I'm writing a piece on currently, and how for all of the wit, ingenuity and syntactical invention in his narrative poems and dramatic monologues, for all of the impressive scope and surprising shifts in the ambitious pieces in his new collection, the poem of his that always astounds me is the first one in his first book: 'Tusking' from Birthmarks.

It's a really incredible poem (a meditation on colonialism via an imagined elephant hunt) with so many layers to it and a beautifully executed rhyme scheme, the sort that you feel really lives up to the whole 'best words in the best order' idea, without a single one wasted. And I'm clearly not alone in my thoughts of this poem being great, as I read something by Bernard O'Donoghue a while back describing the poem as one which should be in the running for the best poem of the past twenty five years. If you haven't read it, it's worth picking up a second-hand copy of Birthmarks for it alone. To give you a taste, here's a couple of stanzas:

'But if, one night
As you stroll the verandah
Observing with wonder
The place of the white
Stars in the universe,
Brilliant, and clear,
Sipping your whisky
And pissed with fear

You happen to hear
Over the tinkle of Schubert
A sawing - a drilling -
The bellow and trump
Of a vast pain -
Pity the hulks!
Play it again!'

Oh, and after two blog posts in a row on Imlah, I'll be sure to post about something different next time, promise...


Holland's didactic post on rhyme leaves little room for a contrary argument.

There are many contrary theories littering the history of the Tradition in which she seeks to situate herself.

The problem I have is when she states that without rhyme: "nothing ascends. Nothing transcends."

If this were the case, then we have to dismiss several canons of poetry in which rhyme plays little or no part. Much alliterative verse and many a modernist piece would not pass the Holland inspection, and be cast into a limbo world to await conferral by a more convincing critical intelligence than Ms Holland's.

The argument she uses, that rhyme acts as a simulteaneous seal of sense and pointer to "a dark glimmering barely glimpsed or understood before the poem began to take shape..." sounds poetic enough, but beneath the surface, lacks the clarity she seeks to impose in the first half of the clause - that rhyme puts: "its finger on significant meaning.."

This significance is not articulated, only the second half of the equation, the uncertainty, is dwelt on, which indicates, (to me at least) a confusion rather than certitude. It would be interesting to hear Ms Holland recite her poetry, in order to guage further this creed of binary division. There is a lack of critical light in her assertion, and until we hear her in person, we're unable to judge fully this philosophy.

Move the focus onto the divide between the page and the performative aspect of her wider practice as a poet on fire, perhaps? The problem with her position is, it is only opinion until we hear her speak.

Until the voice is measured, we cannot fully trust what is being said, as the voice re-enforces whilst re-inventing whatever image we hold of Holland in our heads, as potential students, critics and consumers of what she produces.

She weaves the lingo well enough in prose, but to go beyond this into the realm where rhyme and reality collide and conquer the mind of a reader - this: this is the nub of it I think.
Carrie Etter said…
To take this thread in another direction, after re-reading my manuscript and particularly the few poems in rhyme, I'm surprisingly keen to do more with it, along the lines of a very playful piece therein that uses a fair bit of repetition.

Repetition itself--as anaphora or something more subtle--is an element I'm increasingly interested in. I recently read Zoe Brigley's The Secret and admired the assurance and skill with which she used repetition--again, making me think that's something I want to play with again.

How about you, Ben?
Ben Wilkinson said…
Hi BA and Carrie - thanks for posting.

As far as my own feelings about rhyme go and what I think it can achieve within poems, I've always found that the poetry I most enjoy usually impresses me with its rhyming panache and inventiveness first - I agree with you, BA, when you say that poems do not require rhyme to 'ascend', as Jane puts it in her piece, but it is certainly, when put to subtle and original use, one of the most successful stylistic devices in grabbing the reader's attention and persuading them round to the poem's way of thinking and approaching of subject matter.

I also find that rhyme can give a poem real momentum and energy, something which, for me, made much of Armitage and Maxwell's early work such a wonderful reading experience. Of course, rhyme can be put to dull and deadened use too, which is why you don't see people writing in heroic-couplets or the like much anymore. Ultimately though, while I appreciate a great deal of poetry which doesn't use much rhyme, I've always been drawn to, and most admired, the stuff which does - I tend to enjoy the poem without thirsting after sense and meaning when rhyme (along with rhythm, assonance and alliteration) works its 'magic'. This is the sort of thing I try to achieve in my own poems, as well as using rhyme as a way of linking seemingly disparate ideas and objects - one branch of this obviously being Muldoon's free association.

Popular posts from this blog

Poetry in Motion

POETRY IN MOTION Why one Reds supporter is committing his love for Liverpool FC to verse Liverpool FC and poetry have a lot of previous – from John Toshack’s Gosh It’s Tosh collection in the late 70s, to the verse of Dave Kirby and Peter Etherington in the fanzine Red All Over the Land , to the lines written by poet laureate Carol Ann Duffy, a University of Liverpool graduate, in the aftermath of 2012’s Hillsborough findings. Now there’s Ben Wilkinson, Reds fan and book critic for The Guardian and the Times Literary Supplement , who’s compiling a series of poems commemorating the club’s legends. “Football is part of the fabric of life, and anything that’s important to people finds its way into poetry,” he says. “Wilfred Owen’s poem 'Disabled' describes a soldier who loses the use of his legs, meaning he can never play football again. Philip Larkin’s 'MCMXIV' compares boys queuing to join the army to fans outside Villa Park. These poems have stood th

Michael Hofmann - Changes

Changes Birds singing in the rain, in the dawn chorus, on power lines. Birds knocking on the lawn, and poor mistaken worms answering them ... They take no thought for the morrow, not like you in your new job. - It paid for my flowers, now already stricken in years. The stiff cornflowers bleach, their blue rinse grows out. The marigolds develop a stoop and go bald, orange clowns, straw polls, their petals coming out in fistfuls ... Hard to take you in your new professional pride - a salary, place of work, colleagues, corporate spirit - your new femme d'affaires haircut, hard as nails. Say I must be repressive, afraid of castration, loving the quest better than its fulfilment. - What became of you, bright sparrow, featherhead? poem by Michael Hofmann republished with permission of the author first published in The New Yorker from Acrimony (Faber, 1986) I've loved Hofmann's poetry since I first came across an old copy of what I still think hi

Louis MacNeice

‘World is crazier and more of it than we think, incorrigibly plural’. Even if you’re not that well-versed in modern British and Irish poetry, chances are you’ll still know ‘Snow’, or a line or two from the poem will seem naggingly familiar. While still in his twenties, Louis MacNeice wrote it in 1935, and since then, it’s been a favourite with readers, writers and editors, cropping up in every kind of poetry anthology. Weird, then, that MacNeice’s work has often been seen as a footnote to that of his illustrious pal W.H. Auden, when he’s so clearly a hugely original poet in his own right. And when, among more recent generations, the likes of Seamus Heaney, Michael Longley, Derek Mahon, Don Paterson and Conor O’Callaghan have all cited him as a major influence in their own writing. It’s not like ‘Snow’ was a one hit wonder, either. Despite some of the less exciting – and often lengthy – stuff he wrote in the early 50s, MacNeice only got better, perfecting his moving, atmospheric an