Do We Really Need
Punctuation In Poetry? ________________________
since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you
One of my favorite poems by e.e. cummings answers the
question posed in the title of this editorial-- but he doesnt say it all-- and I believe the better answer would be: it depends on the poem, it depends on the poet.
I, myself, am not disciplined enough to subscribe to given forms in writing, but neither am I as loose as cummings and most of us will fall somewhere in the middle: punctuating now and again, other times not. If there truly is such a thing as Muse- or inspiration- or voices talking through us, then it would follow that it's a soft and insistant sound that we are following like Hanzel and Gretel through the dark forest toward the gingerbread house.
Sometimes it's a 'visual thing'. If you believe (as I do) that how a poem looks on the page is essential to the full realization of its authentic voice, then things like spaces, commas- the maligned ellipses- the variable strophe breaks are essential components. I take a holistic approach to writing, where everything must be in sync: the sound of the words, the look on the page, the punctuation or lack of- all these things contribute to the reading of a poem. Though we cannot manhandle a reader to come to the trough of what we're trying to say and force him to drink, we can leave very clear signposts on the road we've traveled in getting to that place ourselves.
It's about clarity; it's about human communication and where to trust instinct as well as the places where we feel we need to put up stop signs, or light a particularly hairy curve. It's individual judgement, and always, it's particular to the poem. All of it is acceptable unless, in our arrogance either as poets or as readers, we insist that only our own way is the 'correct' one.
My own measurement of how well punctuation is either working or not working in a poem is if in reading it, I completely forget to observe its punctuation, line breaks, comma placement and all other rules of grammar and I ride the poem bareback to the end, if this happens, then the poem transcended its own structure and that is the great paradox: if it's done right, it should not be noticed and it will not matter. If done badly, then it's all the reader will see.
So the poet uses all of these tools, and if used efficaciously, there will be no self-conscious look of having used them at all. This is where stilted affectations in writing hurt the poem most. If the use of any device becomes more important than the words and their meaning, it is a self-defeating hobble. Poetry that does this looks stylized in the worst of ways, and becomes quirky in an obvious attempt on the part of the writer to be seen as 'individual'.
My advice is to follow instinct alone. If a writer follows the voice, the breath, the soaring and the heaviness, the poet's writing dances, skips and zig-zags where it will. As with anything that enjoys a life of its own-(and not one we would impose on it)- punctuation in poetry is different than punctuation in prose: it's flowers rather than chains, with blooms that look as natural as they do in the wildwood. They wend unexpectedly in the inimitable way that nature seems to get things right without even trying, poetry works best when it demonstrates the same invisible hand...
for life's not a paragraph
And death i think is no parenthesis
.......................................~e.e. cummings
