Poetry: Could It Be A Game?
Ferrick Gray
The Yellowed Page
Volume 3, Issue 1 (January 18)
According to The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, game is defined as to play, sport, jest, or amuse oneself, and to amuse, please, or give pleasure to. There is the alternative to while away time by gambling, which in some ways may be appropriate when writing poetry. But is it fair to call poetry a game? It certainly fits with the definition.
What is a Game?
No doubt everyone is familiar with the concept of a game, and yes, they do amuse us, please us, and give us some form of pleasure or enjoyment. However, the most important characteristic of all games is that they have rules, or at least guidelines. If there are no rules, anyone could do anything they liked, and the outcome would depend entirely on the skill of the player, for whatever purposes, honest or dishonest. Rules, whether we like or dislike them, set the boundaries so that everyone is on a level playing field. Without rules, we do not know what is, or what is not allowed, and the outcome of the game could take much the same downward turn as poetry has today.
Rules for Poetry?
Many people ask me: Does poetry have rules? It most certainly does, but in many instances, we could refer to them as guidelines. Rules apply to every style or form regardless. The popular belief is that rules only apply to formal or structured poetry. Wrong!
Part of the fun is to see how far the rules can be manipulated and still be satisfied. As to whether the rule is, or can be broken, depends on the strictness of its necessity. For example, all verses in a sonnet do not have to be strict iambic pentameter. Certain variations are allowable within the verses because they do not violate the rhythm. These variations can often produce a sonnet of better quality. If strict adherence to the rules is enforced, the experience may not be as joyful or fun, and the result may be under par.
The implication from this little argument is that all poetry must have some form or structure to it. Rules create the form and are what allow us to identify the piece as poetry.
The following quota is a little gem from Auden (which I have used before). During an interview, Auden was asked whether the preference of today's poets for free verse was an aversion to discipline. His response is not surprising.
Unfortunately that’s too often the case. But I can’t understand—strictly from a hedonistic point of view—how one can enjoy writing with no form at all. If one plays a game, one needs rules, otherwise there is no fun. The wildest poem has to have a firm basis in common sense, and this, I think, is the advantage of formal verse. Aside from the obvious corrective advantages, formal verse frees one from the fetters of one’s ego. Here I like to quote Valéry, who said a person is a poet if his imagination is stimulated by the difficulties inherent in his art and not if his imagination is dulled by them. I think very few people can manage free verse—you need an infallible ear, like D. H. Lawrence, to determine where the lines should end.
From the Paris Review, Issue 57, Spring 1974, "W. H. Auden, The Art of Poetry No. 17"
It is interesting to note the preference being an aversion to discipline. The common opinion among free verse poets is that rules only stifle creativity, and so the resulting poem is not original, because in some manner it has been copied. Apparently. They need to realize that it is difficult to cite creativity and originality when we look at the work of free verse poets today.
Rules are commonly thought of for the formalists, yet there are other forms, such as haiku, that have definite guidelines which many find difficult to follow or satisfy at first. Whether or not the writer of haiku regards themselves as a formalist is a completely different argument. Nevertheless, with perseverance and practice, frustration turns to enjoyment. This same concept applies to most games.
Could Poetry be a Game?
Poetry is what one wants to make of it. One may not like to call it a game, but that is because of the way we normally think of a game, and the way we use the word.
Poetry has all the elements required to be a game. We have the rules, a vital necessity for every form. We have the players, whether they are poets, readers, critics, or audiences. It may also encourage some form of competition among the players, as in attempting to gain attention by publication in some manner.
Poetry may be thought of as the master category of games, with each sub-category having definite rules for the creation of a specific form or style of poem.
In general, formal poetry is more challenging in that we use the form to express our emotions. Care needs to be taken because the wrong choice of form could be disastrous. Similarly, in other games, if the wrong strategy is chosen, failure can be the result.
Other challenges may be appropriate, such as using archaic language. Using archaic language is not a requirement for any past form and never has been. Poets will normally write in the language of their time. Today's poet may use archaic language if they wish, and in some instances it is appropriate, but this does not mean that their poetry will be any better than if they used contemporary English. In fact, the use of archaic language can be detrimental to the poem and the poet. The poem may become difficult to understand when readers are not familiar with the words, and it is often seen as mimicry.
Final Thoughts
Admittedly, one may consider all this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but something is appealing, albeit amusing. Let's face it, there would be very few poets who make a hearty living from their own published work.
Yes, anyone who enjoys writing poetry would not generally refer to it as a game, but this does not avoid the fact that there are similarities. Most poets take their work seriously, but some dabble in it just for fun. Sometimes it is the fun and excitement that make poetry more enjoyable. It is a matter of exposing more people to poetry (in this way), and hopefully one day resurrecting its popularity.