That’s a bit like asking a painter what is more essential, blue or red?

I am aware that both creativity and grammar when merged creates great poems. But , Which is more essential? — Tarun

That's what I said before. Both are essential. No doubt about that. But if you have to explain, what comes first?
Thanks for your reply.

Now, what can be the most essential for a poem?
Creativity or grammar? — Tarun

More essential has to be creativity (assuming the person is literate). A poem can be written entirely absent knowledge of "good" grammar. But without ANY creativity there is no poem to write.

Hmmm, that may be unfair. I have set the base for creativity at zero, while I assumed a literate level of grammar....I could have easily said "without ANY grammar there is no poem to write".

I still say creativity because poetry plays fast and loose with grammar rules (I get things like figures of speech, rhetorical devices, etc are not really rules). But I am not very confident :grin:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Lol, work is important for sure.
Even my choice is creativity over grammar. Creativity sets the basic talent for an artist. Grammar is more knowledge with that.
Thanks for your reply.

That's great you thought that way. I agree with your thought. But there are also poets who show their creativity with their knowledge of grammar. Here, Grammar is blended with creativity. With such a point of view, the poet is dependent on grammar for his creativity in it. I am a bit confused about what's more essential over what in this place.

To me, after understanding that your question is after acknowledging the shared importance of both, creativity might take the cup because with passing ages, the rules of grammar shift and become malleable. In fact many forms of poetry find identity in these very altered rules of grammar. The creativity however remains constant and makes a drab monotone into a carrier of human condition or a philosophical question or a poetic piece of quiet reflection. This is of course only my opinion.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I agree with that reading idea. After all, Learning is the best way to answer.
And the deceptive simplicity you said is completely new to me. Thanks for sharing.

Grammar nowadays is indeed a bit malleable. But I don't think, with that fact, we can come to a conclusion that grammar is inconsistent. There are several add-ons in all ways.

But there are also poets who show their creativity with their knowledge of grammar. — Tarun

What I said before may also be one of the causes for such malleability, if you concentrate on that point.

A poem is something that cannot be measured. — Tarun

Iambic pentameter?

Now, what can be the most essential for a poem?
Creativity or grammar? — Tarun

It's creativity primarily. The idea of poetry is that setting limits enhances one's creativity, or gives direction to, rather than restrict it. Grammer provides a boundary, or a shape to creativity. You could call it a bound infinity.

Iambic pentameter? — emancipate

Iambic pentameter is a type of English poetry. It isn't a measurement. Even if there exists any measurement, I would firmly disagree with that. One can't measure one's art form and creativity.

Grammar providing a boundary is not much acceptable but however you said grammar provides a shape to creativity which is quite a good one.

Iambic pentameter is a type of English poetry. It isn't a measurement — Tarun

It is a measure of metrical feet. It's called scansion. Are you denying that such a thing exists? It's a fundamental aspect of poetry.

A line of verse with five metrical feet, each consisting of one short (or unstressed) syllable followed by one long (or stressed) syllable - is known as iambic pentameter. There are other forms of measurement, such as: trochees, anapest, dactyl, spondees.

Grammar providing a boundary is not much acceptable but however you said grammar provides a shape to creativity which is quite a good one — Tarun

How can you form, or recognise, shapes without boundaries? Boundaries are the thresholds, the limits.

I'm sorry that I didn't brief about it .
The shaping I meant is giving a direction or guiding the creativity

. Are you denying that such a thing exists? — emancipate

I don't deny it but I disagree with it . Measuring poetry , for me is not the right thing.

To use the technical term for it, thinking that poetry can't be measured, guiding the creativity, gives a shape to creativity, etc. is bullshit.

Look, poetry isn't mystic mastication. It's a form of composition which requires sticking to rules and regulations--even in free verse.

Haiku, for instance, involves 3 lines of five syllables, 7syllables, and 5 again. They could rhyme or not. What haiku is like in Japanese, I don't know. But those are the simple rules in English haiku. If you don't follow those rules, then it isn't haiku.

If you are writing a poem in heroic couplets, it must be in iambic pentamer, and the couplets have to rhyme. Those are the rules for that style.

Of course you don't have to write that way. You could write like Bob Dylan -- I certainly would if I were very, very talented.

Subterranean Homesick Blues
Bob Dylan

Johnny's in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I'm on the pavement
Thinking about the government
The man in the trench coat
Badge out, laid off
Says he's got a bad cough
Wants to get it paid off

and so on. There is a meter and a rhyme scheme. The grammar is pretty straightforward.

My guess is that Dylan didn't just dash those lines off, stand up, and sing them. The stuff of his that I am familiar with look polished--meaning, worked on a lot.

If you want to write poetry, start with straightforward grammar. Learn how to maintain a beat of emphasized syllables, and how to rhyme. Try, at least. Go on from there. Learn something about the basic forms.

I don't know whether you have a creative bone in your body or not. There is nothing about poetry (or anything else) that makes one creative. Creativity is mostly the result of striving to achieve beauty, and is mostly hard work.

Here's a sample of heroic couplet verse by Alexander Pope:

Together let us beat this ample field,
Try what the open, what the covert yield;
The latent tracts, the giddy heights explore
Of all who blindly creep, or sightless soar;
Eye Nature's walks, shoot folly as it flies,
And catch the manners living as they rise;
Laugh where we must, be candid where we can;
But vindicate the ways of God to man.

I'm happy that you could post such a debatable opinion. That's great response from you.
There ARE orthodox procedures for a poem . But all these procedures that you bring up are just procedures. They can't be standards.
In my opinion, there are no standards for poetry.
These procedures are founded by great artists. But poetry did not origin from these great artists. They loved poetry. They used their own system of writing poetry. They introduced that to the world and people adopted it. If poetry was bounded by such procedures and rules, then poetry should be owned by those artists who found them. Poetry cannot belong to anyone . So , in my humble opinion, poetry is not bounded by anything.

Creativity is mostly the result of striving to achieve beauty, and is mostly hard work. — Bitter Crank

And creativity, I think, is not a result of anything. It's a process. The process of thoughts that help you hold your present.

They can't be standards.
In my opinion, there are no standards for poetry. — Tarun

There are, of course, standards. One standard is how well the construction of the poem fits the topic. Another would be originality of expression. A third is how well the techniques of using language are deployed. and so on.

Another standard, the toughest one, is whether anybody remembers and re-reads or recites the poem. Most of the poetry that has been written has been buried because nobody found it particularly memorable. That has been the case for millennia.

If you don't believe there are standards, you probably need a large dose of Onomatopoeia.

If you don't believe there are standards, you probably need a large dose of Onomatopoeia. — Bitter Crank

I certainly believe their existence. I am just disagreeing with that .