<p>Anyone? What are some of your blatant observations? How do you write “good” poetry? What are some of its elements? Of course, I’m not searching for a cookie-cut model but I am curious how to approach it and where it differs along what’s essentially accepted and natural and then where it is simply art. Of course, we can approach the topic from the vantage points surrounding different types of poetry (especially in regards to nationality and time) and how the subject matter is different from that of lengthier works. (A good example is the progression from a single point of view in a poem to a more thorough and arguably “realistic” experience in the plethora of characters and experiences in huge 1,000+ page Russian novels near the close of the 19th century.) </p>
<p>There are so many different forms of poetry that it is difficult to define what is good… buuut…</p>
<p>Good: unique use of language, metaphors, mastery of the form (if rhyming, rhymes don’t sound contrived, etc.), content makes the topic sound unique (obviously, not all topics sound unique… I mean, how many poems have been written about love? But, there are GOOD love poems, because the poet’s approach to the subject is interesting, and then there are HORRIBLE ones.)</p>
<p>Bad: Trite topic, mundane language (not the same thing as simple language… I mean that the way that the way the poet wrote is boring and commonplace), cliched metaphors, failure to fully utilize metaphors, writing in a voice that isn’t one’s own simply to sound more intelligent or esoteric, pretension, thesaurus-sydrome (throwing in random, long words that look good without actually understanding their subtle meanings…), lack of passion</p>
<p>In reality, though, the difference between a good poem and the rest is incredibly obvious.</p>