Gnats! by Ed DeCaria

I’ve gnever gknown a gnat by gname …

… and they’re so gnice, it’s such a shame!

© 2012 [...]]]> Today is Poetry Friday in the Kidlitosphere … thank you to Katya at Write. Sketch. Repeat. for hosting this week. Today, I’ve got a gnew little poem to share …

Gnats!
by Ed DeCaria

I’ve gnever gknown a gnat by gname …

… and they’re so gnice, it’s such a shame!

© 2012 Ed DeCaria, All Rights Reserved.

Be sure to click the image to view it in full screen — it’s amazing to discover what really happens inside a gnat cloud. If you’d like to add your own gnats to the cloud, e-mail or tweet me with your gnat names and what you want them to say and I’ll add them. Parents, teachers, librarians, others — please extend this offer to your kids, too! Just remember, gnats are microscopic in size and have infamously short attention spans, so keep it brief. And above all … be gnice!

Like this poem? Subscribe to TKT now so you won’t miss the next one:

Didn’t like it? Use the share buttons below to send it to someone else who might.

The 128 poems written during MMPoetry gave us a small sample of data with which to play. Without further delay, I’d like to present my quick-and-dirty results.

Under each [...]]]> As discussed in Poemetrics, Part 1, we may be able to gain a lot of insight into what readers like about poetry by analyzing it statistically.

The 128 poems written during MMPoetry gave us a small sample of data with which to play. Without further delay, I’d like to present my quick-and-dirty results.

Under each question, I’ll show the “win-loss record” for poems tagged with each attribute, and discuss any interesting variances that are revealed.

As explained in Part 1, here again are the eleven variables that I felt lent themselves to reasonably objective evaluation, along with the results for each:

*Does the poem rhyme?

First of all, it may be of interest to note that 115 of 128 poems written in MMPoetry attempted to rhyme, at least in part. As for the records:

Rhyming poems: 57-49 (that’s 57 wins, 49 losses)
Non-rhyming poems: 6-7
Imperfectly rhyming poems: 1-8

Not much difference between rhyming and non-rhyming; they’re both pretty much 50/50. But more noticeable is the 1-8 record for what I considered to be failed rhyming poems (and I might as well take the opportunity now to say that I am not revealing my attribution for any individual poems in this analysis, so please don’t worry about that, and please don’t ask for it). People clearly noticed and reacted negatively when a rhyme scheme didn’t work. So, poets, if you’re gonna try to rhyme, you have to get it right.

*What was the structure of the poem?

Perhaps surprisingly, there really weren’t that many poems that took on any formal structure in MMPoetry. By my count, there were 11. We saw forms such as the limerick, the sonnet, the triolet, the pantoum, 1-2 acrostics, and a haiku. There were also 12 poems that I deemed “unstructured”, with no discernable pattern. But mostly, people used what I’d consider standard verse (rhymed or unrhymed), typically 2-4 lines each.

So how did each fair?

Formal structures: 4-7
Standard verse: 54-51
Unstructured: 6-6

These are pretty inconclusive. I would not cast off formal structures as unpopular amongst the 2012 MMPoetry crowd. I recall several of those votes being extremely close; in fact, this could easily have been reversed to a 7-4 record.

So, we’ll call our first poemetric analysis of structure a bust.

*Did the poem attempt to be funny?

Tried to be funny: 36-35
Didn’t try to be funny: 28-29

There were some tweeners where I couldn’t tell (!), but obviously the numbers here suggest that readers were open to both serious and funny poetry. And serious doesn’t have to mean heavy, by the way. There were a number of poems about nature or companionship or other feelings that made no attempt to be funny (i.e., “serious”) but were still rather light.

*Was the poem actually funny?

Now here’s where it gets interesting. Keep in mind, these are generally my reactions. Your sense of humor may be completely different. Still, there were some poems that I didn’t respond to that I still recorded as delivering a smile since I thought the general readership would have viewed it that way. (Again, don’t be overly concerned by this for now — we’re just getting started, and “Poemetrics, Part 3″ will talk about how we take attribution to the next level.)

So, how did comedic delivery affect a poem’s success?

Laugh-out-loud funny: 5-1
Got me to smile: 28-21
Confused me: 3-6
Made me wince a bit: 0-7

As one would expect. (Though good to know that perhaps my sense of humor isn’t too far removed from the crowd.) The funnier the poem, the better the result. And while seven contests isn’t much, it is intuitive that if a poem misses the mark on a joke, it is not going to be received very well by the public.

*How was the rhythm / meter?

This one is borderline subjective, but I am pretty well practiced in reading meter and sensing rhythm, so I feel comfortable with my attribution here. Overall, I classified 28 poems as having perfect or near-perfect meter/rhythm, 67 as doing an okay job (especially under time pressure), but 33 as having tripped me up to the point that they were hard for me to read. Here is how each class fared:

Perfect/near-perfect: 17-11
Okay: 38-29
Needed work: 9-24

Again, fairly intuitive results. Writers must attack meter/rhythm head-on if a poem is to be successful. Readers may be forgiving to a degree, but not endlessly so. I offered up this analogy in the comments in Part 1:

Rhythm and/or meter have to be precise; one wrench and it is disruptive; multiple wrenches and it destroys a poem’s worth to me. It’s like taking a long, hot shower and every once in awhile someone dumps a full bucket of dirty, ice cold water on your head. Sure, when the shower is over, you’re mostly clean, and in between the bucket dumps the shower was nice, but the experience was cruel and you never want to be in that shower ever again.

I stand by that. Personally, meter is the single biggest determinent for me as to whether I’ll buy a book of poetry or not (and there are quite a few books of poetry out there where the meter is spotty, at best).

*What age was targeted?

This turned out to be a dud question. I only tagged 9 of 128 poems as being anything other than general audience. If anyone is wondering, of the 8 tagged as appropriate for “older” audience, they went 4-4.

*What was the subject?

I could have broken this out a bit more, but I thought that these four subjects would make for a good first run:

Animals: 13-12
People: 34-27
Characters: 6-13
Other: 11-12

Hmmm. The only one that really stands out to me is the use of a character as a subject. This was sometimes a blurry line, but generally wherever the subject had a Proper Name, I tagged it as a character poem. (There were some exceptions, I think, where the poem was really more of a first person narrative and the character was more of a supporting actor than a lead, in which case I would not have used the character tag.)

So, consider this a potential warning. If you’re going to use characters, you may have an uphill battle. Certainly some poets have used characters to great effect (cue Mr. Prelutsky and Mr. Silverstein), but it is tricky, at least in my experience.

*From what perspective was the poem written?

First person: 28-18
Second person: 4-2
Third person: 32-44

I really wasn’t sure what I’d find here. I was personally pretty pleased with the result, as my style is to write my kids poems in first person to the extent possible, but I was somewhat surprised nevertheless.

Very curious to hear people’s comments on this one. This topic would definitely benefit from more extensive data collection. What if there really was an unconscious global preference for first person poems?

*Did the poem aim to deliver a punchline or otherwise strong ending?

This is again rather subjective — I tagged a poem as “Yes” on this if I thought the author attempted to end the poem on a line that packed far greater strength than the rest of the body of the poem. Even if I thought that the punchline did not succeed (e.g., an unfunny joke), I still may have marked “Yes” for this attribute. The results:

Punchline / Strong ending: 25-17
No Punchline / Strong ending: 39-47

I did not record the data in a sophisticated enough way that I could quickly isolate specific instances where a punchline poem went up against a no-punchline poem. In the future, this may yield more interesting results. For now, I’d say that a truly funny punchline is a classic in the kids’ poetry world that should always be a successful combination, and that any strong/memorable/evocative ending should always play pretty well, if done right.

*Could the poem have been perceived to break any “rules” of the contest?

There were not too many instances of this, but if you were wondering, wherever the length limit was violated (or could be perceived to be violated), the poems notched only 1 win to 3 losses.

*How central was the assigned word to the poem?

Like the previous question, this is more specific to MMPoetry, but certainly relevant to future participants if not elsewhere.

Thematically important: 38-24
Key Phrase/Line/Image: 13-21
Used Matter-of-Factly or Hidden: 13-19

The poets who were able to completely embrace their word and make it central to their poem proved to be far more successful than those who didn’t. Even an effort to use the assigned word as a relevant part of the overall poem did not seem to have an effect.

So next year when you are assigned the 16-seed word “odoriferous”, you damn well better write a scratch-n-sniff poem about smells, or you’re doomed.

Well, there it is. The world’s first official poemetric analysis. We had to start somewhere, and the votes cast during MMPoetry made sense as an initial source.

But, several of you pointed out to me a key flaw in this initial run. Janet Fagal articulated it clearly: “From a statistical POV perhaps you might ask some others to rate the poems at some point and compare with your analysis?”

YES. I believe in the mantra “Your opinion, although interesting, is irrelevant.” (I first heard this in a product management training course a few years back and it always stuck with me.) MY opinion, though interesting for the purpose of this particular post, is irrelevant in any larger sense. No action should be taken from the above results, unless you want to write me a funny, first person love poem in flawless meter and rhyme.

Poemetrics, Part 3 (timing TBD, maybe next week … check back or subscribe so you don’t miss it!) will lay out my next few ideas for pushing poemetrics forward and starting to collect some more meaningful data, hopefully in a pretty fun way.

Painful to think that this guy nearly forfeited his entire career to drug addiction, and that even [...]]]> Josh Hamilton of the Texas Rangers tied a major league record by hitting four home runs in one game on Tuesday night, statistically one of the rarest feats in baseball. It happens about once per decade, on average.

Painful to think that this guy nearly forfeited his entire career to drug addiction, and that even today, after all his success, he still struggles to stay clean. This poem is a nod to his personal turnaround and how it can inspire turnarounds in all of us.

Hamilton v. Baltimore
by Ed DeCaria

Oriole fans curse and stammer after Hamilton’s first knock. Orange turns black

as he raps his second to opposite field within an hour. He and Elvis circle the mound
like vultures, while catcalls burn through Arrieta’s ears from four hundred feet.

Baltimore’s still breathing after six when another H-bomb crushes
any comeback hopes. This guy is a specimen. I knew he could hit,
but damn – three in one game? Wieters will never be this good.

Eighth inning now. Stadium nerves shift side-to-side to stay loose. All eyes
lock in on No. 32. He digs a hole, down two quick strikes, then strokes a
long line drive ——– deep ——– dead center ——– NUMBER FOUR!!! Camden erupts
into a standing “Ohhhh!” and every homer heart skips a beat in salute of history.

© Copyright 2012, Ed DeCaria. All rights reserved.

We can continue that dance all day and night, but neither of us will [...]]]> Poetry and other works of art are famously open to opinion and interpretation. What I describe as poignant, you may declare repugnant. What I feel is hackneyed, you may find hilarious. What I cast off as atrocious, you may consider genius.

We can continue that dance all day and night, but neither of us will ever prove ourselves “right”.

At least not until one of us brings some data.

During the Madness! 2012 poetry tournament that I hosted here at TKT in March, 128 poems were posted for public evaluation (126 written by our tournament participants, plus one each by me and my alter-ego Charles Mund). Unlike, say, a museum, where passersby may take a moment to observe a piece, offer an approving nod or uncertain tilt of their head, and then shuffle off; during MMPoetry (that was our Twitter discussion hashtag and now-commonly accepted blogger abbreviation), observers were able to leave more permanent marks of their opinions before leaving each page. That is, they voted.

Some 12,000 votes were cast in all. With each vote, we have a documented opinion about something. Was it always as simple as someone reading two poems and saying “I like this one better” or “I could relate to this one more” or “my friend wrote this one” and then clicking through, or can we learn anything more specific about what exactly people liked about the poems that they voted for, in aggregate?

I decided to code all 128 MMPoetry poems on eleven variables that I felt lent themselves to reasonably objective evaluation. The variables, and possible resulting “values”, are:

• Does the poem rhyme? Yes, no, or imperfectly so.
• What was the structure of the poem? Distinct form (e.g., limerick, pantoum, triolet), typical structured verse, or unstructured.
• Did the poem attempt to be funny? Yes or no.
• Was the poem actually funny? LOL, smile, huh? (i.e., didn’t really get it), or wince (got it, but it was pretty bad).
• How was the rhythm / meter? Perfect or close to it (leniency is granted for poems written on 36 hours notice), okay, or not-so-good.
• What age was targeted? General audience (7-15yo but appropriate for anyone in a sense), Younger, or Older.
• What was the subject? Animals, people, characters, or other.
• From what perspective was the poem written? First, second, or third person.
• Did the poem aim to deliver a punchline or otherwise strong ending? Yes or no.
• Could the poem have been perceived to break any “rules” of the contest? Yes or no.
• How central was the assigned word to the poem? Thematically important, key to a line or image, or used matter-of-factly/hidden.

From these questions, I am hereby announcing the creation of a new branch of applied statistics called Poemetrics — the quantitative study of poetry-related facts, trends, preferences, and whatever else we can think of that hopefully won’t take the fun out of writing/reading the stuff in the first place.

Now, before I reveal any findings, I want to know which attributes from the above list YOU think were more often associated with winning poems over the course of the tournament. Do you think funny beats serious? Do you think people care about meter? Do you think people like characters in poems? Do they value reading new poetic forms?

Leave your comments below!

Then, in a few days — by Friday 5/11 at the latest — we will review the world’s first ever poemetric analysis, and see if it turns up anything interesting or not.

On Monday I guest-posted for Katie Davis. Today I am publishing a poem as part of Greg Pincus’ 30 Poets / 30 Days event! Now in its fourth year, Greg has featured some [...]]]> National Poetry Month continues! I hope that you are celebrating by reading or writing, or playing with poetry in some other way.

On Monday I guest-posted for Katie Davis. Today I am publishing a poem as part of Greg Pincus’ 30 Poets / 30 Days event! Now in its fourth year, Greg has featured some amazing poets — and amazing poems — during this event, and I’m thrilled to have been invited to contribute.

My poem is called “Something Sweet” … What it’s about? I cannot tell.

Oh, alright, it’s about a smell.

Head to GottaBook RIGHT NOW to read the poem. I’ve also left a present in the Comments section beneath the poem — a link back to a hidden page (ooh, how fancity) on my site that contains an audio recording of the poem. It’s my first ever, and it probably shows!

But it all starts at Greg’s site, so go there first to read my poem, then make like a competitive eater and read as many other poems as you can stomach in ten minutes, then consider picking up Greg’s new e-book The Late Bird while you’re there, and then pop back over to listen to my reading of “Something Sweet”. (And then I’ll stop ordering you around — you can do whatever you want the rest of the day.)

As for me, [...]]]> We’re now in the meaty part of National Poetry Month. Hopefully everyone is enjoying all of the great events taking place throughout the blogosphere. Too many to list, but a few of my favorites are Greg Pincus’ 30 Poets / 30 Days and Renee LaTulippe’s new poetry video series. Check ‘em out!

As for me, I’ve enjoyed the last ten days off from last month’s madness here at TKT. I’ll continue to maintain a low profile throughout April — there’s so much going on in the poetry world this month, you don’t need any extra entertainment or information from me, anyways.

I will, however, be making a few appearances on other sites. Not sure of the exact dates, so I’ll just post links as they happen.

Today, I am up at KatieDavis.com with a post called “The Inception of Madness”, in which I trace my(?) idea for the March Madness poetry tournament through time and memory to pinpoint its origin. Even I was surprised to see where it led! Go read my post, leave a comment or question, and I’ll respond right there on Katie’s site.

Thanks!

-Ed

Stephen and Debbie are now searching their inner Poes for one last pressure-written poem, while the rest of us wait and wonder what’s next.

And so, I thought I’d give you all something [...]]]> The inaugural Poetry Madness! tournament is nearing its close — a merciful finish for some, and a rather merciless one for others.

Stephen and Debbie are now searching their inner Poes for one last pressure-written poem, while the rest of us wait and wonder what’s next.

And so, I thought I’d give you all something to talk about.

Many of you have shared with me (or have shared openly in the comments or on your own blogs) what this madness has meant to you: from interacting with family to sparking new student enthusiasm, from discovering unfamiliar authors to discovering your own talents, from remembering decades-old experiences to triggering forgotten poetic thoughts, from expanding personal networks to meeting potential long-term friends.

Honestly, I never expected anything so … permanent.

Fun? Yes.

Fast? Yes.

But then I thought the thing would just sorta end.

However, it’s pretty clear now that this event is here to stay. And that brings me to the point of this post: An annual event of this magnitude deserves a SYMBOL, something that truly captures the spirit of the event.

To this end, I am excited to introduce you to:

“The Thinkier”



^{Non-artist’s rendering}

Inspired by Allan Wolf’s uncannily creative use of his 15-seed word “kinkier” in the first round, this trophy will be engraved with the names of all Poetry Madness! champions over time. After each year’s tournament, “The Thinkier” will be sent to live with that year’s winner for the following year. They can show it off at home, in school(s), on tour(s), whatever they want — just try not to break him! But then, when the next year’s tournament starts, they send it back to me to add the name of new champion, and then “The Thinkier” goes off to live in a different home for that year, gets to meet a new set of people, and so on.

Despite its inanimateness, it will be an unmistakably living, moving, breathing embodiment of the event.

And that brings us back to our 2012 Finals …

Whose name will be forever engraved as the first Poetry Madness! champion?

We’ll find out Thursday night! And now we have something else to talk about while these two take forever to write their final poems. Geez, guys. Hurry up already.

The Poets’ Challenge: Each poet is assigned a single word based on their bracket seed, ranging from 1 (intuitive) to 16 (seemingly impossible). Poets must write a kid-appropriate poem using the prompted word in under 36 hours. Once both final poems [...]]]>

^{[click image to view matchup in full screen in a new window.]}

The Poets’ Challenge: Each poet is assigned a single word based on their bracket seed, ranging from 1 (intuitive) to 16 (seemingly impossible). Poets must write a kid-appropriate poem using the prompted word in under 36 hours. Once both final poems have been received, they will be pasted into the body of this post, and then the reader poll will be open for voting.

Voter Instructions: Read each poem as many times as you’d like. Then use the poll to express your preference. Votes are counted in real time and cannot be changed once entered. As a guideline for voting, consider the criteria on which the contestants on the cooking show “Chopped” are evaluated: presentation, taste, and creativity. Translated roughly into poetry terms, presentation might include technical aspects such as meter, rhyme, form/shape, etc.; taste might be the net effect — did the poem move you to laugh, cry, think, kill, etc.; and creativity might include the poet’s approach toward a certain subject, image evocation, clever wordplay, etc.

“This is awesome, where can I find more?”: All 124 previous Madness! 2012 poems and voting results are visible from the Live Scoreboard page.

*bovine
BATTLE ROYAL
by Stephen W. Cahill

Bovine balloons were lined up in platoons
Defending Inflatable Land.
They made up an army, a little bit barmy,
With battles appallingly planned.

Their number one foe were giraffes made of snow,
All equally lacking in sense.
They climbed to the top of a hill where they stopped,
Declaring “Let battle commence!”

With hair dryer Uzis and mini Jacuzzis
The cows tried to melt their tall foe.
But soon they were faced, from all over the place,
With a porcupine catapult show!

The cows started popping, giraffes started flopping,
The make-believe armies near dead,
When a hand from above, in a little blue glove,
Picked up a balloon and he said,

“Moo-cow, you’re the winner! But now, it’s my dinner.”
And so, the balloon must depart.
Its tail is undone and it sails to the sun,
Straight up in the air with a fart!

vs.

*impecunious
Tale of a Not Overly Dramatic Broke Kid
by Debbie LaCroix

To be without a penny,
Is to be without a dime.
To be without a quarter,
Is the most horriblest cruel crime.

Impecunious as a pauper.
Broke as a street bound bum.
All I want is a dollar
To go and have some fun.

The video game isn’t that expensive
I’m not exaggerating at all.
But if I can’t find me some money
I think I’m gonna bawl!

Fine, what can I do to earn it?
What if I clean my room?
Then will you give me some money?
OK, where is that broom?

Better than a penny,
And better than a dime,
Better than a quarter
Is money that is mine.

VOTING CLOSED. IT’S OVER!
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

GET OUT THE VOTE.
The average pairing in Round 1 generated 154 votes.
The average pairing in Round 2 generated 178 votes.
The average pairing in Round 3 generated 224 votes.
The average pairing in Round 4 generated 354 votes.
The average pairing in Round 5 generated 605 votes.

Don’t break the trend now!

Use the share buttons below and mention the madness wherever you go so that these poems reach more kids!

Wake Up by Ed DeCaria

Didn’t sleep (surprise, surprise) Blood-soaked bags drag down my eyes

I know … I know …

But the world Never waits For me to Wake up

© Ed DeCaria 2012, All Rights Reserved ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Happy to be back in the mix at Poetry Friday! My poem reflects [...]]]>

Wake Up
by Ed DeCaria

Didn’t sleep (surprise, surprise)
Blood-soaked bags drag down my eyes

I know …
I know …

But the world
Never waits
For me to
Wake up

© Ed DeCaria 2012, All Rights Reserved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Happy to be back in the mix at Poetry Friday! My poem reflects my current state of reality. Thanks to Heidi at My Juicy Little Universe for hosting the roundup this week.