Ezra: So my brother and I are both aspiring writers, with some limited experience.

James: Indeed. And, being homeschooled, we are for the most part self-taught.

Ezra: Yup. And that's kind of how we learned creative writing - by doing and then doing some more.

James: Sounds a bit amateurish, but I think it's the best way to learn. So, Ezra, I have been impressed with the large amount of quality poetry that you've been writing. Now, when did you begin to write all these poems? It was after I went to college, wasn't it?

Ezra: Umm... I think it started when I was a Junior and you were a Senior. I had that Brit Lit course that required me to write a poem a week for about two months. That sort of got me hooked. Of course, you've written a few lines yourself - class A stuff if I remember right.

James: Well, I've written a few poems, I guess -- I'm not sure I'd call them class A, though they were fun to write. Currently, I'm trying to write a novel, but that's for another conversation. So, I've noticed that there are a lot of poetry styles out there; you have some style variance, but you seem to adhere to older styles. What are your thoughts on different styles of poetry?

Ezra: Thoughts? Hmm. Poetry is really hard to define, you know. But I think that it's important to remember that Poetry is an Art (I disagree with the definition of poetry as a form of self expression - poetry is self expression, but not all self expression with words is poetry). I am currently reading a book entitled, How to Write a Poem, by L. J. Dessner. One of the things that the book shows is that just pure self expression does not always lend itself to good Poetry. Poetry should have some form of aesthetic value.

James: That's a good point. What kinds of things, then, would lend aesthetic value to poetry? Ones that come to my mind are rhyme and meter, similes, metaphors, and maybe something like an acrostic.

Ezra: Yup. All those things, I think, are sort of techniques or tools or building blocks that poets can use in their works. They're kind of like different brushes that an artist might use for various effects on a painting, or different instruments that a composer might use in a symphony. You know, I think it's also interesting to look at poems from a cultural perspective. I learned from talking to Aunt Kari, for example, that Japanese poetry puts a heavy emphasis on meter and the number of syllables in a line.

James: Ah, yes, like the classic Haiku. You know, something I like to do occasionally with my poems is to build them off of acrostics. I got this idea mainly from the Psalms in the original Hebrew, and John Milton in his Paradise Lost. The thing is, though, I like my poems to adhere rigidly to rhyme and meter. The result, is that writing the poem is a challenge! Trying to get the words to fit the pattern while at the same time having the ideas flow smoothly, is hard to do.

Ezra: Yup.

James: So, when you right poetry, what is usually your biggest challenge?

Ezra: Flow. Beyond a doubt, flow. Writing a poem where the words flow easily or naturally through a reader's mind is one of the most difficult things that a poet can do. Sometimes I wonder if this is why many poets gravitate toward free verse - it's a lot easer to achieve good flow when you don't have to worry about a specific format.

James: Easier, definitely. Without worrying a lot about rhyme or meter, full attention could be concentrated on flow. But for some reason, my overly-structured brain has never really enjoyed that as much as others. When I read poetry, I always appreciate a consistent pattern of rhyme and meter. I've heard many others disparage it. The great John Milton hated the idea of writing his poems so that they rhymed; it constrained him too much. But for some reason, I've always enjoyed reading it and writing it. It's difficult, yes, but I love the challenge.

Ezra: Ah, yes - difficult. But then, sometimes, it makes the poem more worth the writing in the end. Speaking of worth writing, it can sometimes be interesting to look at a person's motivation for writing poetry. Mine, for example, is that I love creating something which expresses joy or sorrow or heroism or courage or something along those lines in a way which people can relate to, but also see as beautiful.

James: I have the same motivation, but I think I place a heavy emphasis on beauty, and I usually try to accomplish this by, well, the "simplistic and child like" methods of regular rhyme and meter.

Ezra: Well - I think that free verse gets a bad rap because it is often abused. A lot of people think of free verse as nothing more than sentences of prose broken up into poetry-like stanzas. But when you write in free verse, you still have to keep in mind that you are creating what should be a work of art. There are some breathtaking free verse poems out there that use such things as parallel thoughts, similes, metaphors, and stunning or unusual descriptive language to give them that "poetic quality".

James: Yes, definitely. The Psalms and other poetry in the Bible are a wonderful example of this. Hebrew Poetry is marked by parallel lines of thought, and a good thing -- if it were defined by rhyme and meter, its beauty would be lost in translation.

And yes, free verse is often abused, but I think that the worst thing is it's overused. It seems that everybody uses free verse almost all the time these days; it's the conventional way to go. Admittedly there are advantages to it over ridged rhyme and meter, but I don't like being conventional. I enjoy defying conventional wisdom. If conventional wisdom says "Newer is better," I'll probably stick with what's old. If it says, "Free Verse should be embraced," I'll probably shun it. I'm an odd sort of rebel.

Don't get me wrong; if a particular free verse poem is good, I not only appreciate it, I enjoy reading it. In fact, I'll probably post a free verse poem one of these days. It's just that I so enjoy the sounds of rhyming words and even meters, that I prefer not to abandon them in my own writing.

I suppose there is a such thing as overkill in rhyme and meter, though. You could probably find a few examples.

Ezra: Definitely. Wow - I had no idea when we started this conversation that it would grow so big. But I think that there is one more thing we should cover before we finish this off: showing versus telling. It's a phrase which is usually used in conjuncture with story-writing. However, I believe it is also an important thing for a poet to understand.

James: Indeed. What are some ways to do a good job of showing, and pitfalls of telling to avoid?

Ezra: To do a good job of showing, a poet must paint a picture in the reader's mind - a picture which makes the reader feel as if the poet were an actual eye witness to whatever is being described. And that picture should be original, too. Most of us have heard the clichés, like "deep blue ocean", or "green grass", or the redundant statements like "sorrowful tears" or "joyful laughter". These add little to the reader's perception of the poem. A person who had actually observed an ocean, for example, would probably describe it as "the dark and wild sea" or "the still and silent waters", depending on the weather.

James: That's a good way of fixing the cliché "deep blue ocean." So what would you do with "green grass", "sorrowful tears", or "joyful laughter"?

Ezra: Hmm. Well, for grass, I would just think about what the grass would actually be like. Grass can be soft, prickly, cold, warm, tall, trimmed, wet with dew or rain, or a thousand other things. The point is, part of the art of poetry is saying as much as you can in as little space as possible - so if you call grass green, you are wasting a chance to hook your reader with a more vivid description. And the same thing goes for sorrowful tears and joyful laughter: the word laughter, by itself, already invokes images of joy, so adding "joyful" to it does nothing. If, however, you use more descriptive phrases, such as "quiet laughter", or "hearty laughter", or "subdued laughter", etc, you will bring a whole new level of depth to your poem.

James: Ah, I think I understand better what you are saying, especially the point about saying as much as possible with as little space as possible. I must ask you more, though, concerning the "sorrowful tears". Context set aside, what adjective describing "tears" would you find most moving, and why?

Ezra: Ah, well, perhaps silent, or perhaps angry, or hidden, or empty, or salty, or regretful, etc. Maybe sorrowful isn't really all that bad, if it fits the context best.

James: I like "silent tears." I think that combination has the most potential.

Ezra: Why, thank you.

James: One last question, Ezra. Out of all the poems you have written, which one is your favorite?

Ezra: Wow. That’s tough. At this point, I’m going to have to say “The Broken Dance”, but there are four or five others that are close runner-ups. For those of you who don’t know, my brother and I have been working on this “colloquy” for about three months now, emailing it back and forth, and adding a paragraph each time. But because I am going out to sea soon, I am going to have to make this my last thought (even though there is still much to be said about the pitfalls of telling).

James: These are sad times. You'll be out at sea and away from communication most of the time until summer! Be sure to write a really sad poem about it. Ezra, thank you for your delightful and enlightening conversation; I hope we can have another one soon.