I must confess I am guilty of naming the form in many of my poem titles. It has become a habit and yes, some habits do need to be broken. Thanks for pointing this out. I must have confidence in the reader "getting it".
I think poetry’s moved beyond the classroom, so we’re seeing a wider range of backgrounds accessing it. Since not every reader’s been exposed to form, some poets name or explain it when they read - especially at open mic spaces where you have spoken word and page poetry mixed.
I personally don’t like stating form in my titles, but I do make a note of it afterward sometimes to offer context. Some of us are formally trained and other poets are shaped by lived experience. We can learn from each other.
At one time or another, we've all done it, but I don't like it. The message it sends the reader is that what is important is that the poet could write this particular form. It shifts the attention away from whatever the poem was about. On occasion, it makes an argument that the poem is in a form when that poem really only gestures toward the form. That seems weak as well. Ultimately, my preference is for the poem as poem to be foregrounded. It should stand on its own without the pedestal of a title proclaiming it's in a particular form. Test: if you didn't know it was a sonnet, sestina, villanelle, etc., would it work as a poem? If not, there's a problem. To write some kind of verse isn't hard. To write a good poem--that's what's difficult.
Like everything, Mark, it depends on how it's done. In Terrance Hayes's American Sonnets each sonnet is titled "American Sonnet for..." which inverts what you are mentioning but still reminds the reader they are all sonnets, as if it were necessary. I've read sonnets called "Sonnet", and poems called "Poem".
Some poets are expanding what a sonnet can be, and other people coming after that are using it in their titles without necessarily thinking it through or perhaps even realizing that it doesn’t need to be there. When people are playing with form, using the form in the title, though the poem doesn’t necessarily seem like that form immediately or obviously, as in “Broken Sonnet for…” or something like that, the title calls attention to the form that is being stretched in a way that I appreciate.
Good point about calling attention to the breaking of form. This I like. I don't see it as showing off (telling the reader you know the rules well enough to break them). Could be argued the "broken" variations are avant garde.
I think that people have become confused by the ones that break the form and call out the form for that reason with what they (the confused poets) “should” be doing in their own titles, and that this is probably why we’re getting more sonnets with that title - oddly enough I just wrote a first draft of a poem about Bill Buckner’s 1986 World Series error. In my notebook it was fourteen lines, but now in the computer, it’s only 13, so if I decide to keep it as a sonnet with a missing line or as Unforced Error Sonnet or something like that, it would be part of the title for a reason, and I like that.
Yes, I knew Hayes' text would come up. Of course that's very intentional and a whole project, not just a single poem.
True, too, that poets will call a poem "Poem" and a sonnet simply "Sonnet". There's a long history of this. It does seem a bit like opting out of a title that brings something more to the poem-- something that is not expressed in the body of the work.
It seems to me that these are probably questions which haven't concerned poets for a very long time. Shakespeare didn't title any of his sonnets, for example. Neither did Petrarch. I'm not a historian of these things, so I don't know the story, but I basically side with the idea that if it works, it works. If it comes off as amateurish, as in your example(s), of poets thinking they need to brief the reader on the form in the title, I can see where that is gauche. Diane Seuss's frank: sonnets puts the form in the title of the book itself, leaving the poems themselves titleless.
Except for obscure forms and Golden Shovels (for which I’d rather have an epigraph with “golden shovel after XXX”), I don’t care for it. The form doesn’t make the poem.
I actively dislike “sestina” and “sonnet” specifically in a title. I want sestinas to sneak up on me, and there’s no sneaking when the form is announced. As for sonnets, they’re THE FORM in English. Write a fourteen-line poem and you’re already in conversation with the tradition.
The thing about golden shovels, of course, is how badly the reader wants you to see the fun gamified element of having the borrowed line run down the right-hand side of the poem. I'm reminded of how, in music, some producers like to let the beat run at the end of a track to self-congratulate on how clever they are. I'm thinking aloud on the page here...
I see the golden shovel as a close cousin of the burning haibun. I say that because folks domesticating haibun into English have worked out what that form needs to be doing, and if a golden shovel isn’t doing similar things, then I’m not interested.
People definitely do this with Centos. And I get why. You have to inform the reader in some manner... since you are using someone else's work.
I keep debating about an * (asterisk) at the end of a poem title and then a note below the poem with this explanatory info. It's a little academic for creative work... but sometimes we need to show our work, right?
I love the moment of discovery when I, as reader, notice the form of a poem. i often have to stop and review if it's villanelle, pantoum, ghazal, which helps me refresh on the "rules" of the form. No, it's not necessary to put the form in the title. Hopefully the poem stands alone without explanation!
I occasionally title sonnets "[ ] sonnet" as a way to note that I'm working in that particular tradition, that the "sonnetness" seems important, especially if it doesn't follow *all* the rules. But I only do this occasionally. Generally, I agree with you that it usually seems unnecessary or silly.
I have noticed, and I don't like it. Let the reader figure it out if it isn't immediately apparent.
I must confess I am guilty of naming the form in many of my poem titles. It has become a habit and yes, some habits do need to be broken. Thanks for pointing this out. I must have confidence in the reader "getting it".
I think poetry’s moved beyond the classroom, so we’re seeing a wider range of backgrounds accessing it. Since not every reader’s been exposed to form, some poets name or explain it when they read - especially at open mic spaces where you have spoken word and page poetry mixed.
I personally don’t like stating form in my titles, but I do make a note of it afterward sometimes to offer context. Some of us are formally trained and other poets are shaped by lived experience. We can learn from each other.
At one time or another, we've all done it, but I don't like it. The message it sends the reader is that what is important is that the poet could write this particular form. It shifts the attention away from whatever the poem was about. On occasion, it makes an argument that the poem is in a form when that poem really only gestures toward the form. That seems weak as well. Ultimately, my preference is for the poem as poem to be foregrounded. It should stand on its own without the pedestal of a title proclaiming it's in a particular form. Test: if you didn't know it was a sonnet, sestina, villanelle, etc., would it work as a poem? If not, there's a problem. To write some kind of verse isn't hard. To write a good poem--that's what's difficult.
Well said, George
Like everything, Mark, it depends on how it's done. In Terrance Hayes's American Sonnets each sonnet is titled "American Sonnet for..." which inverts what you are mentioning but still reminds the reader they are all sonnets, as if it were necessary. I've read sonnets called "Sonnet", and poems called "Poem".
Some poets are expanding what a sonnet can be, and other people coming after that are using it in their titles without necessarily thinking it through or perhaps even realizing that it doesn’t need to be there. When people are playing with form, using the form in the title, though the poem doesn’t necessarily seem like that form immediately or obviously, as in “Broken Sonnet for…” or something like that, the title calls attention to the form that is being stretched in a way that I appreciate.
Good point about calling attention to the breaking of form. This I like. I don't see it as showing off (telling the reader you know the rules well enough to break them). Could be argued the "broken" variations are avant garde.
I think that people have become confused by the ones that break the form and call out the form for that reason with what they (the confused poets) “should” be doing in their own titles, and that this is probably why we’re getting more sonnets with that title - oddly enough I just wrote a first draft of a poem about Bill Buckner’s 1986 World Series error. In my notebook it was fourteen lines, but now in the computer, it’s only 13, so if I decide to keep it as a sonnet with a missing line or as Unforced Error Sonnet or something like that, it would be part of the title for a reason, and I like that.
I like your argument here. Katie Dozier is partial to "sonnet minus one" for the 13-line sonnet. I have always thought of this as a "chopped sonnet".
Regarding your main point, yeah, I think naming the form due to reader confusion is a likely culprit.
Yes, I knew Hayes' text would come up. Of course that's very intentional and a whole project, not just a single poem.
True, too, that poets will call a poem "Poem" and a sonnet simply "Sonnet". There's a long history of this. It does seem a bit like opting out of a title that brings something more to the poem-- something that is not expressed in the body of the work.
It seems to me that these are probably questions which haven't concerned poets for a very long time. Shakespeare didn't title any of his sonnets, for example. Neither did Petrarch. I'm not a historian of these things, so I don't know the story, but I basically side with the idea that if it works, it works. If it comes off as amateurish, as in your example(s), of poets thinking they need to brief the reader on the form in the title, I can see where that is gauche. Diane Seuss's frank: sonnets puts the form in the title of the book itself, leaving the poems themselves titleless.
I see people doing this. Is it a trend? IDK.
Except for obscure forms and Golden Shovels (for which I’d rather have an epigraph with “golden shovel after XXX”), I don’t care for it. The form doesn’t make the poem.
I actively dislike “sestina” and “sonnet” specifically in a title. I want sestinas to sneak up on me, and there’s no sneaking when the form is announced. As for sonnets, they’re THE FORM in English. Write a fourteen-line poem and you’re already in conversation with the tradition.
Yes. 100%. re. "Write a fourteen-line poem and you’re already in conversation with the tradition."
The thing about golden shovels, of course, is how badly the reader wants you to see the fun gamified element of having the borrowed line run down the right-hand side of the poem. I'm reminded of how, in music, some producers like to let the beat run at the end of a track to self-congratulate on how clever they are. I'm thinking aloud on the page here...
I see the golden shovel as a close cousin of the burning haibun. I say that because folks domesticating haibun into English have worked out what that form needs to be doing, and if a golden shovel isn’t doing similar things, then I’m not interested.
I do enjoy intertext and clever things, though.
Ooh interesting comparison with burning haibun
I'm also guilty of naming the form in my titles. Since I write cento, always felt I should declare that right off the bat... even with sources listed.
Love your example of "One Art Villanelle" Thank goodness not a trend then!
People definitely do this with Centos. And I get why. You have to inform the reader in some manner... since you are using someone else's work.
I keep debating about an * (asterisk) at the end of a poem title and then a note below the poem with this explanatory info. It's a little academic for creative work... but sometimes we need to show our work, right?
Readers do need to know-- though an asterisk is tricky, a good idea.
I love the moment of discovery when I, as reader, notice the form of a poem. i often have to stop and review if it's villanelle, pantoum, ghazal, which helps me refresh on the "rules" of the form. No, it's not necessary to put the form in the title. Hopefully the poem stands alone without explanation!
yes to this: "Hopefully the poem stands alone without explanation!"
I occasionally title sonnets "[ ] sonnet" as a way to note that I'm working in that particular tradition, that the "sonnetness" seems important, especially if it doesn't follow *all* the rules. But I only do this occasionally. Generally, I agree with you that it usually seems unnecessary or silly.
Agreed about the power of "sonnetness"
Are we desperate to be different or be just the sore thumb I wonder.
You make a very good point. I too have noticed the same thing regarding formal poems.
Good stuff to think about. Thanks, Mark.