The Resurgence of Rhyme

 To Rhyme or Not to Rhyme?


There has been a raging argument for years as to whether rhyming poetry is archaic and no longer viable and has been replaced by free verse or free style poetry that does not rhyme. Some say yes, others say no.  

I have been part of a two year debate over whether rhyming poetry is dead or not. The comments seem to be divided almost 50/50. If rhyming poetry was dead, there would not be so many publications and media formats requesting it. Ironically, rap, a style of rhyming poetry set to music and a beat, garners more interest and revenue than all other performance forms of poetry, unless you include lyrics, and then you have a whole nother category of often rhyming poetry to consider.

Both sides trade barbs. The free-stylers say that rhyming poetry is childish or pansy, too light, too humorous, too sing-songy and somewhere out of la la land. The rhymers say that free style poetry is not really poetry, rather it is nothing more than chopped up prose, it is sloppy, it is undisciplined, it does not require as much skill.

Some say that free style poetry has actually worn itself out and rhyming poetry is on a great resurgence. I'm all for a resurgence of rhyme, but by no means am I for the death of free verse or free style poetry either.

Why is it that most people want to polarize on one end or the other of an issue? Why is it that issues have to be polarized and turned into opposing views? Why can't we simply accept the congruence and harmony in many issues and understand the pragmatic balance of them?

What I am saying here is that there is room enough for both rhyming forms and free verse to be vibrant, viable and powerful ways of writing poetry, each with its own significance, each with its own unique qualities and characteristics, each with its own particular application, and each with its own impact. One thing is clear, neither style works for anyone if it is not done well.  

Poetry must be well done, crafted exquisitely, presented in a manner that exudes total natural progression.  Poetry that is not natural will not appeal to most readers. It will come across as contrived, forced and artificial which will cause it to lose its credibility. 

So why can't we accept the congruence and harmony of multiple forms of poetry, each with its own significance and each with its own power? Why must free-stylers fight with rhymers and criticize each other rather than to relish the different skills it takes to write each? Many great poets wrote both rhyming and non-rhyming poetry and did each equally well.

That's where I stand--right between, amidst and among both and all forms and styles. I write both, does that make me bi-poetic? If you only see in polarizations, perhaps. I prefer to think I am ambi-poetic, and that all poets should be to a certain degree in order to master the art of writing powerful poetry.

Please share your thoughts and also post some poems. If you post a poem, I request that you also comment on two other poems posted in the forum. Simply give your feedback on two other poems, share your impressions, why you liked the poem or where it could be made tighter, more effectual.

Please tell your poetry friends about this blog and let's make this a great place to interact and talk about everything poetic.

Challenge:  Post both a rhyming and a non-rhyming poem in the forum.

© 2013 NavWorks Press and DE Navarro. All rights reserved.

Options:

You can check out my author website DE Navarro.

And perhaps check out my newly released book, Dare to Soar.

Thank you, and have a fantastic day or night (whatever it is for you).