World Class Poetry Blog

Poetic Language Cannot Be Too Archaic
8 March 2008, the poet @ 6:12 pm

There’s no such thing as language too archaic for poetry. I know there will be some disagreement on this point, primarily from people who don’t understand the point I’m going to make any way. But if you’ve ever been in a poetry critique group or workshop and someone has said, “That word seems too archaic,” or “Modern poets don’t write like that,” then you’ll know where I’m coming from.

What people usually mean when they say a word is too archaic is that they don’t know what it means so you shouldn’t use it. You could use a brand new word and someone could just as well say, “That word is too intellectual; I don’t think you should use it.” Can you imagine that? “I don’t think you should use anthropomorphic. It’s too big a word.”

Whine, whine, whine.

Here’s a clue: Pick up a dictionary. Poets use words. Sometimes we use big words. Sometimes we use words that aren’t in use much longer. Archaic to a non-poet means something like “bobby socks.” Since people don’t wear bobby socks any more, it’s too archaic. It shouldn’t be used.

Any word in the English language, past, present, or future is fair game. The only issue is whether a particular word is the right word choice for a particular poem based on tone, voice, style, subject matter, etc. That said, there are two poetry terms that every poet needs to be familiar with.

• Onomatopoeia - Onomatopoeia should not be confused with archaic, or ancient, usage. This poetry term signifies a word that poets use to illustrate a sound. The word itself sounds like the sound it’s supposed to signify. For instance, squish is a word that sounds like squish, the sound your boots make when they step in a mud puddle. It has nothing to do with archaic language, but it is a poetic technique that uses odd words to make a point. Language, or word play, is the fairground of poets. The cool thing about onomatopoeia is that you can make up words, and if people don’t understand what the words that you make up mean then you were either ineffective in portraying the effect you were going for or they just don’t understand the poetic technique you are employing. You can fix the first problem, but the second problem isn’t yours to fix.
• Anachronism - An anachronism may actually have something to do with archaic usage of words. It could also be anything that is misplaced in time. For instance, a medieval knight that whips out a cigarette lighter to light the fuse of an artillery gun is anachronistic. That could be a useful effect in a poem, but to employ it successfully, it has to make sense. A serious love poem that involves a medieval knight in the 21st century may not make much sense, but that doesn’t mean that some poet couldn’t pull it off successfully. Maybe it’s satire and the knight is there for comic effect. Poetic techniques that involve archaic uses of language are permissible if they make sense for the poem based on tone, style, voice, subject matter, form, and other poetic elements.

Other poetic techniques may be useful as well. Suppose a poet were to use a metaphor comparing a 21st century idea that people are familiar with with a historic artifact or piece of equipment that is no longer in use. The Internet is like Gutenberg’s press would be an example of that. Of course, Gutenberg’s press is an ancient piece of equipment. Does it belong in a poem? Maybe; maybe not. If it doesn’t, it isn’t because it’s ancient and no longer in use, but it would be because it just doesn’t fit in the poem that the poet is trying to place it in. That’s really the most important thing.

I’ve met poets who say they don’t like it when people use the word “O” or “Oh” at the beginning of their lines and stanzas. That’s not the way people write any more. Shakespeare used the word effectively, as did many of his contemporaries. At one time, that was the way everyone wrote. People don’t write that way any more. The poetry is more conversational and consistent with the way that most people in our society think and use language. That doesn’t mean that these expressions do not have their place in poetry. I’d be judicious in putting an “O” or an “Oh” in a poem, but I wouldn’t necessarily rule it out completely because of some modern prejudice. I would take special pains to make sure that if I did use it that it wasn’t done in the same way that people today are familiar with. I wouldn’t want to remind anyone of John Donne in a negative way. I’d want people to think I was doing something original, and if a poet can’t do that, no matter what technique he uses, then he shouldn’t be doing what he’s doing.

Archaic language should not be ruled out. But it should be done in a manner that makes sense for a particular poem, a particular voice, a particular style. Perhaps you want to write a lyric ballad about a French troubadour being wooed by a dominant chain-mail wearing courtesan/warrior in the court of Marie Antoinette. Let’s say you want your poem to be a sestina. Well, you might very well use language of that era because it is appropriate for the subject matter. You must also consider voice. Whose voice will that poem be told in? The troubadour’s? The courtesan’s? Marie Antoinette’s? A court jester’s? A friend of the courtesan’s commanding officer, who thinks she is a man in the French army? All kinds of things can take place in a poem. You have to work out the details and use language that is appropriate for your narrative.

To summarize, there is no such thing as language that is too archaic, too futuristic, too (fill in the blank). It is either effective or ineffective, appropriate or inappropriate to your poem. Think along those lines and your language should speak like the song of angels.

2 Comments a “Poetic Language Cannot Be Too Archaic”

1. Talia — March 9, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
   

   My mom still uses “bobby socks.”

2. the poet — March 9, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
   

   lol

   Bravo for your mom, Talia. I wondered if that reference might too recent to be a good example, but I thought it might resonate with some of my younger readers. You can change “bobby socks” to “zoot suit” and it still rings true (I hope). Thanks for commenting.

Submit a comment

Name

E-mail (not published)

Website URL

Enable CommentLuv which will try and parse your last blog post, please be patient while it finds it for you

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail