Loading essays…
Craft essay · Voice
An editorial reading of when received forms — sonnet, villanelle, ghazal, marsiya — earn their constraint, and when they cost more than they pay.
By Poets of The Household5 min read
The argument about whether to write in received forms has been running in English for at least a hundred years, and in most other major poetic traditions for considerably longer. It is not the argument this essay engages. The essay's question is narrower: given that a poet may choose to use a form on a particular poem, what does the form actually do for the poem, and what does it cost?
The editor's bias here is toward forms as a particular kind of pressure. A form constrains some decisions and frees the poet to spend attention on others. The villanelle's constraint is the refrain and the rhyme; the freedom is everything else. The sonnet's constraint is the volta and the fourteen lines; the freedom is the diction, the imagery, the kind of argument. A poem that uses the form well is usually a poem whose attention has gone to the right places; a poem that uses the form badly is usually one where the constraint has paid for nothing and the freedom has been spent on managing the constraint.
Robert Hass, in A Little Book on Form (Ecco, 2017), distinguishes between formal traditions — the rules attached to particular received forms — and the more general formal imagination that operates in every poem regardless. The distinction matters. A sonnet is a tradition; a free-verse poem still has form (line, breath, stanza, syntax). The choice is not between form and no form; it is between an inherited set of constraints and a more local set.
When a received form is helping, several things tend to be true:
Take a draft in a received form. Rewrite it as free verse, abandoning the constraint. Then rewrite the free-verse version back into the form. Compare the two formal versions. The stronger one tells you what the form was doing.
Hass's argument that every poem has a form, inherited or invented, is the framing this essay leans on most heavily. Especially useful are the chapters on the lyric stanza and on free verse as a formal tradition.
Ali's preface and the anthology's strict-form policy are the source for the essay's discussion of the English ghazal.
Working overview of contemporary arguments for and against received forms; useful for placing the essay's voice-and-form question in a broader conversation.
Standard reference. The entries on 'Form', 'Free Verse', 'Villanelle', 'Sonnet', and 'Ghazal' are the technical baseline behind the essay's framing.
The most common workshop pattern in formal poems is a poem where the constraint has cost the diction. The rhyme demanded an awkward inversion; the meter demanded a filler syllable; the refrain demanded a return the poem had no actual use for. The poem reads like a poem fighting its form.
A second common pattern is the form-as-credential. A sonnet that is technically a sonnet but does nothing only a sonnet could do — no real volta, no argumentative use of the octave-sestet division, no rhyme that is more than ornament — is usually a poem that wanted to be a sonnet for reasons external to the poem. Many editors will respect the technical execution and still ask what the form is doing.
A third pattern is the half-form: a poem that adopts a form's surface conventions (the villanelle's line count, the sestina's word-list) without adopting its mechanism. Half-forms can succeed; the modernist sestinas of John Ashbery and the late villanelles of Dylan Thomas's contemporaries both work this way at moments. But the half-form's risk is that it inherits the form's apparatus without inheriting the form's purpose.
The ghazal travelled from Arabic and Persian into Urdu, where it produced some of the form's most sophisticated practitioners (Ghalib, Mir, Iqbal). The English ghazal is a more recent and more contested object. Agha Shahid Ali's argument, in his preface to Ravishing DisUnities: Real Ghazals in English (Wesleyan University Press, 2000), was that the ghazal in English was almost always being written as a series of disconnected couplets with the radif and qafia abandoned, and that this abandonment had cost the form its actual mechanism. Many of the ghazals he published carry the strict radif-qafia structure; many of the English-language ghazals being published elsewhere at the time did not.
The argument is not settled. Some poets writing in English now (Mona Arshi, Marilyn Hacker) work with the strict form; others (the looser tradition descending from Adrienne Rich's "Ghazals in Homage to Ghalib") accept the form as a thematic structure without the radif. Both kinds of poems can succeed, but they are doing different things. The editor's bias here is toward naming which kind of ghazal the poem is in fact attempting, because the readerly expectations differ.
A note for the case where the poet is writing free verse. Free verse is not the absence of form; it is the practice of choosing the local form, line by line, without inheriting an established pattern. The line break, the stanza break, the syntactic shape — these are all formal decisions. Many of the most-loved free-verse poems in English (Whitman, William Carlos Williams, Mary Oliver, Lucille Clifton) are formally tighter than their reputations suggest. The constraint is not the radif; the constraint is the writer's particular discipline about where the line will break and how the breath will run.
Robert Hass's broader argument — that every poem has a form and the only question is whether the form is inherited or invented — is, in this editor's reading, the most useful framing. A poem that fails because its inherited form was wrong for it fails the same way a poem fails when its invented form is wrong for it. The questions to ask are the same: is the constraint doing argument-work? Could the poem have done the same thing differently? Has the diction been chosen with the form in mind?
A non-exhaustive list, named as observations:
Each is a sign, not a verdict. Many strong formal poems will trip one of them and still earn the form. But many drafts that trip three or four are drafts the form is costing more than it is paying for.