How do we write a poem?

 

There are at least three approaches to writing poetry. There is writing poetry as though it is prose, you know what you are going to write, or you discover what you are writing in the act of writing, and then do the writing; in this the poet is getting down on paper whatever it is he or she wants to write and possibly following a defined form, narrative or lyric, sonnet, ode, ballad, counting syllables, or most probably free verse. There is nothing philosophical or extraordinary in this down-to-earth approach to writing. This is the way most poets write poetry; we could stop here and say that writing poetry is writing and nothing more. But some poets see more to writing than this and there are two other approaches to writing poetry. The approach to writing is involved with the poet’s approach to poetry. 

The first of these two approaches to writing poetry is that the poet needs to be inspired. John Keats writes, in his "Axioms of Poetry", that real poetry comes naturally, "as leaves to a tree”, it is that poetry should be written spontaneously. This is the approach of poets like Allen Ginsberg and it was Ginsberg, after a reading in Montreal in 1969, who told me of following breath when writing; poetry is related to breath, and line breaks should conform to breath; this relates to “inspiration", "in-spiring", breathing in spirit, breathing out the poem, and composing according to breaths as written on the page, as a form of composition, how the poem appears on the page is how it is to be read. As well, to “in-spire" is to, literally, breathe in spirit; this isn't soul that is being referred to but spirit, soul is not spirit; spirit comes to you when you are inspired, it is external to you, it enters you from the outside world. The idea that inspiration is spirit breathed in by the poet doesn't need Ginsberg's concept of composition following breath, each can stand alone. 

Here is Google's "AI Overview" of the word "inspiration":

The word "inspiration" comes from Latin inspirare (to breathe into), combining in- (in) and spirare (to breathe), meaning to "blow into" or "breathe upon". It entered English via Old French around the 1300s, initially meaning divine influence, especially for scripture, linking to the idea of God "breathing life" or words into people. This root connects to "spirit" (breath/soul) and evolved from a divine concept to a more secular idea of creative or emotional motivation.

We live in a society that is secular, so these ideas of a spiritual or divine connection to poetry are alien to most people, including many poets. Matthew Arnold said "the strongest part of our religion today is its unconscious poetry" and "...what passes with us for religion and philosophy will be replaced by poetry"; for some, poetry is their religion, but we don't worship poets, we don’t worship poems, but we do know the valuable insight literature offers readers, insights that were once the message of organized religion and can now be discovered in literature. We want to read poetry that is significant and meaningful--whether spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually--we like poetry and literature that explains or illuminates something about human experience, that helps us to understand life, that affirms life, for this reason T.S. Eliot and W.B. Yeats, and Rilke, are more significant as poets than Ezra Pound and Charles Olson who, for many readers, are obscure and "do not cohere". 

Rimbaud and Jim Morrison

It is also possible to understand writing poetry as "dictation". Inspiration and dictation in writing poetry are closely associated but different; however, in both approaches one never censors what the poem is saying; never censor oneself despite one’s fear of expressing something important, never censor oneself whether for personal or some other reason. We've seen what inspiration means; dictation means listening for the poem then writing it down. Indeed, it may be quibbling, or a minor difference, to differentiate between inspiration and dictation because they are similar, but dictation is not necessarily inspired writing, dictation it is more about listening or being dictated to, it is related to spontaneous writing, riffing on words or a phrase, going where the poem, the words, take you, listening as though the poet is an outsider to what the poem is saying. 

Poetry is one of the few places in our desacralized society where we can talk about inspiration, spirit, soul, the mystery of life, and the divine. This doesn't mean referring to traditional aspects of organized religion, it means understanding some aspect of the human condition. Years ago I read a biography of George Fox, the founder of the Quaker movement; here is the Google AI Overview on George Fox:

George Fox (1624–1691) was the English founder of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), a movement born from his spiritual experiences emphasizing an "Inner Light" or direct connection with God, rejecting formal clergy and rituals in favor of inner guidance and silent worship, establishing principles like equality, pacifism, and plainness that shaped Quaker beliefs and practices despite persecution.

A Quaker meeting, a religious service, is held in silence until someone feels moved by God to speak, not in "tongues", but in plain English, inspired by the divine, and this is similar to what we do when writing poetry. I spent many years sitting most evenings and writing whatever came to me, with no preconceived ideas as to what to write, but writing without prior thought. For some poets writing poetry requires waiting for the poem to make itself known and this approach may or may not produce real poems. After many years of writing, not just learning the "craft" ("The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne", as Chaucer wrote in "The Parliament of Fowls") opening consciousness to poetry, I wrote a real poem, and then several real poems, and these poems are in my first book The Trees of Unknowing (1978). One of the signs of writing a "real poem" is that one can stand behind this poem for years after writing it, not just for days or a few months; it is the beginning of one's lifetime body of work. Sitting, waiting, and listening for the divine, is a foundational aspect of Quakerism; it is also an approach to writing poetry. Quakers "quaked", trembled, they experienced a physical manifestation of being moved by God, by the Holy Spirit; their lives were illuminated with an inner light. Dictation doesn't mean hearing a voice speaking to you, it is the delay between the act of writing and the words that are given to you; in my experience there is a momentary gap--perhaps a millisecond--between what is "dictated" and what is written down. I think we can all agree on the importance of not censoring what we write if we want to write real poems, not second hand and contrived poems. The message is: follow where the poem takes you and one day you will possibly arrive at a real poem.                                                             

“Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art” by John Keats

This is the corner of Cedar and Pine Avenue; not sure of the name of the building in the photograph. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5001995,-73.5856389,3a,75y,319.42h,115.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soTIZKMkzySsSiH4-5JUChA!2e0!5s20090401T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art—

         Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night

And watching, with eternal lids apart,

         Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,

The moving waters at their priestlike task

         Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,

Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask

         Of snow upon the mountains and the moors—

No—yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,

         Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,

To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,

         Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,

Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,

And so live ever—or else swoon to death.

On Keats's Axiom of Poetry and the Writing Process

First, I think Poetry should surprise by a fine excess and not by Singularity; it should strike the Reader as a wording of his own highest thoughts, and appear almost a Remembrance. Second, its touches of Beauty should never be half way, thereby making the reader breathless instead of content. The rise, the progress, the setting of imagery should like the Sun come natural to him, shine over him and set soberly, although in magnificence, leaving him in the Luxury of twilight. But it is easier to think what Poetry should be than to write it, and this leads me on to another axiom. That if Poetry comes not as naturally as Leaves to a tree it had better not come at all.

                                                    —John Keats, letter to John Taylor, February 27, 1818

In the late 1940s my father bought several boxes of books second hand, among these were volumes on grammar and English literature published by Oxford University Press. A few years after he died I began reading one of these books, The Oxford Book of English Prose (1945), it was the edition chosen and edited by Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, and a letter by John Keats impressed me; it is Keats's letter of 1818 to John Taylor which includes his famous axiom, "That if Poetry comes not as naturally as Leaves to a tree it had better not come at all.” The whole quotation is brilliant, it speaks to us as though it was written only yesterday, and its message is as pertinent today as it was when was first written.

            Keats's axiom anticipates Jack Kerouac's essay on "Elements of Spontaneous Prose" (1958), both describe a similar approach to writing. Spontaneous writing can begin as unself-conscious jottings, scribblings, automatic writing, not censoring what one writes, and then proceeds to being soul-making as it reveals to the poet aspects of the imagination that have not been made conscious. Poetry is not prose and, while both use language to express something, poetry and prose are very dissimilar; Keats is writing about poetry but Kerouac's approach to writing can apply to either poetry or prose. James Joyce was a favourite writer of Jack Kerouac's but "spontaneous prose" is not the same as Joyce's "stream of consciousness" which is a narrative technique, Joyce sought to duplicate the monologue of a character's inner voice. Kerouac's emphasis is on writing as a process, it is a spontaneous approach to the composition of a text.

            Allen Ginsberg's phrase "first thought, best thought" is also concerned with the process of writing. The emphasis in both Kerouac's and Ginsberg's method of writing is on being spontaneous, on composing poetry that is original and true to the poet's vision. Spontaneous writing may even be useful, efficacious, for the poet in discovering his or her authentic voice, the voice in poetry that speaks from the soul and inner being of the poet. Ginsberg's approach may not result in consistently well-written poems, but for him a poem is like a Zen garden that includes apparent imperfections.  

            Let's also not forget that all poets have a foundation to their work that precedes writing poems, it is a poet's apprenticeship and is comprised of studying literature, years of writing to learn the poet's craft, and years of thinking about poetics. Whether formal or informal, extensive or limited, this foundation precedes and informs what the poet writes; with it there is an intelligence that is brought to each poem that is written. Can you induce spontaneity necessary to write a poem? Some poets have tried to do this by writing poems under the influence of alcohol or drugs believing that it will short circuit the ego's intervention when writing; other poets have tried to enter a trance-like state when they write. These are shamanistic approaches to writing; approached this way a poem seems to write itself and each poet will have their own experience of this. In effect, the poet's foundation as a writer—experiential and intellectual—will always inform what is written spontaneously or otherwise.

            Keats's axiom also reminds us that poetry is a part of the natural world; Keats mentions leaves on trees so let's briefly consider the symbolism of trees. While a tree's roots may be deep its branches reach into the sky, this is the joining of earth with heaven. It is Hades that is beneath the surface of the earth, a place of darkness but also creativity and growth, plant seeds and in a few days green shoots appear, visit Hades and you will have something to write about in your poems. For poets to mature it is necessary to visit the Underworld, as Persephone did; this is a journey into darkness and, if the poet has the courage, it is also a place of great creativity, of exposed truth, of revealing what has been hidden and disguised.

            The sky is also important, the heavens, the sun, moon, and stars, even the clouds, they suggest the archetypal and symbolical world that pre-exists the intellect; in the archetypes we find depth and insight, vision and clarity. Both the earth and the sky are a single movement of seasons and the complexity of psychological discovery is not one of embracing one or rejecting the other, but of embracing both, of embracing opposites. This is the natural environment of poetry and it is the attraction of poetry; meaningful poetry comes from deep in the unconscious mind, the same place of imagination as dreams and our unconscious thought processes. No one can force an articulation of this world, it speaks for itself without the intervention of the ego or the conscious mind, it must come to consciousness as naturally as leaves to a tree.

            C. G. Jung is one of the great thinkers of the twentieth century, he is a brilliant assimilator of ideas, an explorer of inner space, and a spiritual guide. Mythology has always been important to poets, for instance in both William Blake's and John Keats's poetry, and Jung wrote about mythology in the context of his study of psychology; his followers have continued this work. As well, Jung's use of archetypes as a way to understand human behaviour speaks directly to our inner being; one of the important writers on this subject is Maud Bodkin who taught at Oxford University and wrote Archetypal Patterns in Poetry: Psychological Studies of Imagination (1934). There are other concepts that Jung popularized and that have resonated with a large contemporary audience, they are especially relevant to poets; for instance, the human Shadow, alchemy, anima and animus, the collective unconscious, dream work, introvert and extravert, and even Jung's interest in astrology all help to expand the poet's vision. Jung's study of consciousness is rich in ideas and images for poets, it can be a necessary part of the poet's foundation that I spoke of above.

            My reaction to Keats's statement when I was sixteen or seventeen years old and reading it for the first time was one of recognition, "of course, that's how poems are written." Keats's axiom  was something that I knew but as a memory remembered. The axiom is still important for poets; the alternative is to suffer a loss of connection to what makes real poetry that is not just fashion, entertainment, or formalistic writing. Keats states what is obvious to poets: poetry should come as naturally to the poet as leaves grow on a tree, you cannot make leaves grow and neither can you force a poem to be written.

                                                            17 - 28 May 2020