Using Sound

[Harry Rutherford]

Out of curiosity -

How consciously do you use sound when writing a poem?

What I mean is, the only thing I do to improve the sound of my poems is play around with words and see what sounds good. I don't consciously think "this poem needs some alliteration/consonance/assonance/hard consonants/nasal sounds/dipthongery."

On the other hand, if I'm willing to add rhyme consciously, there seems to be no reason not to do the same with other sound effects.

What do you lot do?

Harry

[James Flick]

Hi Harry

When I start I do what sounds correct at the time choosing my words, and I suppose subconciously editing, with the goal of getting the piece on paper. Later in the revision process I edit for many things, including sound. I consider each word choice and decide if alternate words would add to the overall sonic quality (and/or meaning). I consider all poetic devices that seem appropriate-- sometimes rhyme gets in the way so I remove it, sometimes I add to increase the harmony, etc.

James

[Adam Pittman]

Hi Harry - good thread.

What I've lately been trying to do is use sound devices to reflect the meaning of my poetry or to heighten sensory imagery. I would love to be capable of doing this to entire poems, but usually it only sticks out occasionally. For example, if I were to write a poem which has a situation in which a train passes by I might attempt to use two short sounds followed by a stress (and repeat that order). The stress would most likely end on a hard-sounding consonant such as T or K. One of my problems is that I'm terrible with meter (I should probably make my way over to Scansion Mansion some time soon).

Recently I posted a poem in Merciless which had a central character speaking from the first-person perspective; he said he "screamed warmth backwards". I intended "warmth" to be taken not only as it was (a noun, a quality), but also as a sound ("warmth" backwards is "thmraw") that would again reflect the sense of what the speaker was trying to get across -- this is why I put it into italics. (Sorry if my self-quoting seems like advertising my own poetry -- it's not. If I'm going to talk about how I write poetry, though, I'll eventually have to quote at least a snippet of what I've written.)

So essentially I use sound to magnify the connotations of my poetry. It often doesn't work out. I'm seeing what I can do about that. I hope this was at least somewhat interesting. Thanks for the thread.

Adam

[Rachel Lindley]

I don't make a conscious and deliberate effort to encorporate various sonic devices into my poetry, but as anyone can attest who reads my poems, I'm a sonic nutbar. The deliberation comes after I write the initial draft. Usually it involves culling out sonic devices rather than putting more in.

I become more deliberate in my revisions when adding, changing, or removing any word or phrase from the draft in order to maintain or accentuate meaning by playing with rhythm, ease of speech, speed, fluidity, sharpness, etc. I don't tend to consciously map that out, however -- it's an ear thing with me. I read my drafts aloud on numerous occasions when revising to listen for changes in sonics and whether those changes improve or impede the piece overall and how their sound may contribute to meaning.

Please keep in mind, however, that I don't keep a daytimer either, or wear a watch, so that should tell you something.

Rachel
unplanned

[Dunc]

Interesting, Rachel. As far as I can recall, I've never read a poem aloud while I was writing it. My poetic ear, to the extent that I may claim one, is internal.

Otherwise, I agree that nearly all sound comes free with the words my brain conjures up. These are most often shaped, and most often require editing, by the sense of rhythm, whether strict or loose. Lines that manifestly play with sound, like but Dunc defunct 's a thought to make Dunc think (in a recent post of mine) arise pretty much complete. However, as an instance of tweaking for sound, the line after originally began, All must be seen to ... I changed it to Things must be seen to .. to continue the alliteration with thought and think. (But it was that kind of poem.)

How do you teach ear? Wish I knew - it would certainly help my critting here. Regards / Dunc

[This message has been edited by Dunc McReil (edited 02-06-2002).]

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by Dunc McReil:
Interesting, Rachel. As far as I can recall, I've never read a poem aloud while I was writing it. My poetic ear, to the extent that I may claim one, is internal.

I never used to either, Dunc -- until I realized that my internal voice had a far smoother tongue than my external one. Heh. Considering how crazy wild my brain tends to get with sonics, some of my poems have emerged virtually unspeakable aloud. Now I make it a point of reading the pieces aloud, although it's usually not full voice -- I'm too distracted thinking about the revision. It's a whispered reading, usually.

Rachel

[James Flick]

Originally posted by Dunc McReil:
Interesting, Rachel. As far as I can recall, I've never read a poem aloud while I was writing it

I didn't always, but on advice, I started reading my pieces out loud a few years ago. I think it is easy to be fooled by reading language silently. Once I speak the words out loud I can spot errors in flow, the rhythm, the sound-- eliminating tongue twisters, etc.
Probably you've had the experience that you've posted what you thought was a good poem, then upon reading what you've posted you saw it in a different light, and wished you hadn't. To me reading a piece out loud is analogous, you’re in a better position to judge objectively.
As far as I'm concerned it is one of the essentials of serious writing: always read your work out loud.

[garyg]

**I drink a lot of Scotch, and attempt to channel Dylan Thomas.

garyg
How shall my animal?

[Clive2]

I use rhyme in almost everything I write, so I suppose I consciously use at least one sonic device.

I then look for alliteration and assonance opportunities because without them, (among other things, of course) I think a poem would be rather flat.

Mind you, sometimes the alliteration just happens withuot me realising it until I read the thing aloud. I do this as a final check on my internal ear.

So I'm agreeing with everyone here!

[Ted]

I don't think I've ever written a line and then later consciously altered it for sonic purposes. I think up the lines in my head, say them aloud, and whatever makes my tongue move around the most will usually make it into the poem. I pay more attention to sound now than I used to, so I inherently incorporate more devices when I see or hear the lines in my head.

Did any of that make sense? I don't channel Thomas, but likely some W.C. Fields.

Ted

[This message has been edited by Tedward (edited 02-08-2002).]

[cookala]

I think my approach to sonics is similar to Clive's. I don't consciously think about sound in the initial draft, I just get the words out and down on paper as they come, but it is something I have developed an awareness of when I start to revise. Most of the time, my initial draft is already loaded with internal rhyme, alliteration and assonance but I think thats just the resulting gray matter overload from all the poetry I do read. Mostly, I "hear" in my head the way Dunc does. I have found that reading my free-verse poems out loud does help me spot potential tongue twisters, but I have to consciously remind myself to do it. Yet, if I'm trying to write in meter and form I always read the poem out loud and find myself doing the same when I crit as well. So, I guess I can say I have developed a definite internal awareness of sound since I first started writing, but that this has happened of its own accord and not deliberately.

[Harry Rutherford]

Interesting. Thanks everyone.

I don't normally approach sound as a separate issue, instead doing it as part of the whole word-choice process.
Which is fine, except that I probably tend to get bogged down in worrying about what the original draft sounds like, when I could usefully be getting an outline of the whole thing down on paper.

Harry

[Howard Miller]

After Harry started this thread, I got to thinking about the subject and discovered something sort of weird about my writing procedure that I'd never realized before.

When I'm writing comic/light/silly pieces, I generally use rhyme but don't as a rule pay much attention to other sonic devices. I suspect this approach is a legacy of the fact that I spent a number of years as a writer/performer of comic material where my primary concern was clarity and effective oral communication with an audience. Apparently, without realizing it until now, I've carried over this method of composition from comic prose into writing comic verse.

On the other hand, on those rare occasions when I attempt serious poetry, I am very conscious of sound throughout the compositional and revisional process, often choosing words, phrases, and rhythms on a sonic basis as much as on a semantic/syntactical basis. Probably the result of exposure to Hopkins and Dylan Thomas at a too-young age.

Thanks for asking the question, Harry. I'd probably never have realized the difference in how I approach types of poems otherwise.


Howard