Is rhyme socially acceptable in contemporary poetry?
>>7509062
If you do it out of aesthetic necessity then ya sure knock yourself out.
...or is it considered reactionary, kind of like a contemporary director making a completely unironic '50s style western?
>>7509075
There is absolutely no such fucking thing.
>>7509080
Nigga if you think that then you've never done anything creative. I just meant that OP should only do it if he reaches a point in his decision making where rhyme is needed.
...it's not like there's any rules to this shit anymore. If you want, pick and choose from old conventions depending on what you want to get done.
>>7509075
/thread
there are no hard and fast rules in art
obviously some guidelines of good taste exist, but as long as you can make it work for you you're doing ok
applies to >>7509076 also
it's not "considered" x unless it seems x
there is no standard formula for determining how a particular choice will be percieved in all contexts
>>7509084
>...it's not like there's any rules to this shit anymore. If you want, pick and choose from old conventions depending on what you want to get done.
So what you're saying is, the current rule is not to rhyme systematically? That this is no longer aesthetically necssary-slash-permitted?
>>7509089
that is not what he is saying at all
he's saying that there are no rules
that has been expressed to you very clearly
might i add you are autistic
>>7509096
>there are no rules
Meaning that systematic metre is no longer considered acceptable?
>>7509089
>the current rule is not to rhyme systematically?
No. There is no "current rule". If you rhymed systematically it'd be pretty fucking noticeable, floating on the sea of MFA blank verse that is contemporary poetry that it would be, and it'd probably initially come off like you were a teenager who hadn't read much modern poetry yet, but there's nothing wrong with the choice in itself as long as you make it work aesthetically.
>>7509105
Your response is basically sensible, but I really have to call out this unconscious attitude one more time.
>There is no "current rule"
This sentiment is bandied fucking everywhere, and what it means is that everyone is heavily discouraged from formal structure. Meaning that there is a rule against rules.
>>7509110
>This sentiment is bandied fucking everywhere
yes
>and what it means is that everyone is heavily discouraged from formal structure
no
The only reason you feel you're discouraged is that it systematic use of formal structures just isn't popular anymore. It's discouraged in the same way you're discouraged from showing up to work dressed in a fucking toga (and if you had a good reason to be wearing a toga, you'd be justified in doing so and no one would have a problem with it, same as with systemic use of rhyme).
>>7509100
good god
meaning that nothing is "acceptable" or "unacceptable" by any rule
you can use personal "rules" that govern your own wrting if you like, but there are no rules of """social acceptability""" as you've described it
>>7509160
...you are literally autistic ... or just a subtle troll, tho I'd vote for autistic.
>>7509163
I am literally asking literally difficult questions, which literally frustrate you. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
>>7509163
I'd also add, OP, that you should probably not even try writing poetry. You've repeatedly misinterpreted very simple bits of text written to you by (at least) two separate people in a way that speaks very poorly on your reading comprehension and empathy.
...maybe it would be good for you as a sort of therapy ... I dunno. At any rate, it's probably not gonna be your thing 2bh.
>>7509170
I've repeatedly called you out on your attitude.
And as has been demonstrated, I was correct.
Average people believe that rhyme is as socially acceptable as wearing a tog to work, which is to say, that they consider it completely unacceptable.
Trying to get explanations of your muddy, unreasoned sentiments from you is like pulling teeth.
>>7509178
you write like an autist
No; anything that isn't about vaginas or colored people is misogynistic.
>>7509160
>It's pretty tiresome dealing with ordinary people. I suppose you also believe that you don't have an accent?
Is there a sophisticated way to say "I know you are but what am I", because the irony here is palpable.
>>7509062
the fuck guy
anything is acceptable if you do it well, which you likely won't and rhyme is a thing that needs to be done exceptionally well to work
t. a published poet and teacher
>>7509254
But do you know why the caged bird sings?
>>7509294
The irony of someone being ignorant of their own prejudices and believing them to be utterly normal, standard thoughts?
I don't think it's ironic. I think it's utterly normal and standard, not in any way unexpected or quirky.
Would you like to complain about my reading comprehension again? It's a pretty safe rebuttal to make.
>>7509385
Are you assuming that everyone who is talking to you is one person?
Sincerely, I think you're autistic, and you should delete this thread if you still can.
>>7509385
No, you misunderstand. It's ironic that you assume me of being blithely unaware of my own normalcy while you're simultanously proving yourself to be completely plebian and blind to your own absolute stupidity and denseness at every turn.
>>7509160
>Meaning that it's not socially acceptable?
Meaning that it may or may not be socially acceptable *depending on the context.* Is it socially acceptable? I dunno. Maybe. Nobakov's heroic cantos in Pale Fire certainly stand out as an example of the success of rhyme and iambic pentameter in contemporary English language. Shell Silverstein, while generally beloved and commercially successful, is maybe an example of its failure.
I don't know what to tell you. If you rhyme well, it's absolutely socially acceptable.
