I have always made my own rules, in poetry as in life - though I
I have always made my own rules, in poetry as in life - though I have tried of late to cooperate more with my family. I do, however, believe that without order or pattern poetry is useless.
In the journey of a poet, as in the journey of life, there is an essential tension—a tension between freedom and structure, between the boundless horizons of the soul and the disciplined shape of the craft. Anne Stevenson, in her profound reflection, declares, “I have always made my own rules, in poetry as in life—though I have tried of late to cooperate more with my family. I do, however, believe that without order or pattern poetry is useless.” In this statement, we hear the voice of a poet who understands the sacred balance between individuality and structure, between the rebellious spark of creativity and the grounding force of discipline.
Consider the ancient poets who created not merely for expression, but for the purpose of passing on wisdom to their people. Homer, the great master of the epic form, wove his tales with precision and order, yet the stories themselves breathed with the fire of unrestrained creativity. His verses were structured in the form of hexameter, a rhythmic pattern that gave form to his powerful words, and yet the content—the gods, the heroes, the fates—danced freely within that framework. It is through this balance of order and freedom that the poet’s work gains its eternal power, for without pattern, the words would lose their force, and without freedom, the work would be but an empty vessel.
In this same way, Stevenson teaches us that poetry is not simply the wild, unchecked outpouring of the soul, but a craft—one that requires discipline and intention. Order gives shape to the poet’s voice, allowing the raw power of language to resonate with clarity and impact. Without order, without structure, poetry would be but a chaotic murmur, a fleeting whisper that cannot endure. As Stevenson reflects, “without order or pattern, poetry is useless.” These words remind us that the deepest truths, the most profound insights, often require a form in which to be fully realized. Just as a stone may hold the potential for beauty, but must be sculpted with care, so too must poetry be shaped with purpose.
Yet, we must not forget the rebellious nature of the poet, the impulse that breaks free from the constraints of tradition. The great William Blake, who felt the world of his time stifling in its rigidity, broke the molds of poetry to reveal a vision of the world unbound by the limitations of the conventional. Blake’s work, though structured in verse, was often wild and visionary, bursting forth with an energy that transcended its form. He too understood that poetry required a balance, a space for both order and liberation. Stevenson’s remark on making her own rules is akin to Blake’s own defiance—both poets understand that true creativity can never be confined entirely to form, yet it requires form to thrive.
And so, Stevenson offers us a vital lesson: in life, as in poetry, we must make our own rules. But the rules we make must not be without purpose, and they must not be isolated from the greater whole. Just as the poet must balance their freedom with structure, so too must we, in life, seek balance between individuality and community. Stevenson speaks of her efforts to cooperate more with her family, reminding us that while we may carve our own path, we are still part of a greater tapestry. The poet’s craft is no less a family than the poet’s life itself—each poem is a thread woven into the larger story of existence.
The lesson is clear: freedom without structure is chaos, and order without freedom is empty. It is in the union of these forces that poetry—indeed, life—finds its meaning. Without structure, the poet risks wandering aimlessly in a sea of words, adrift without purpose. Without freedom, the poet becomes a prisoner to convention, their voice muted by the very form that should give it power. Stevenson urges us to embrace both—to create with passion, but to shape that passion with the care of a master craftsman.
In your own life, dear listener, take this wisdom to heart. Whether in the pursuit of poetry or in the building of your own path, remember that the greatest creations—whether in art, work, or relationships—are those that balance freedom with order. Create your own rules, but do not forget that those rules must serve a greater purpose. Seek the harmony between individual expression and collective understanding, and in doing so, you will find that your life, like a great poem, is one of lasting meaning and beauty.
HMHieu Minh
I feel a sense of both admiration and tension in her approach. Making one’s own rules suggests courage and autonomy, but asserting that poetry without order is useless implies limits to freedom. Could this reflect an internal struggle between creativity and control? I’d like to explore examples in her poetry where this balance manifests—moments where personal rule-making intersects with recognizable patterns. How might this philosophy influence readers’ expectations, and does it challenge or reinforce conventional notions of poetic mastery?
HDhienanh dinh
I’m curious about how Stevenson's statement might apply to contemporary poetry, where free verse and experimental forms dominate. Does her insistence on order contradict modern trends, or is she advocating for an underlying structure that may be subtle rather than rigid? Also, I wonder how personal discipline and external rules interact in her work. Is the pattern she refers to strictly formal, or could it encompass rhythm, thematic development, or narrative logic? How might this perspective help poets find a balance between intuition and craft?
UGUser Google
This makes me wonder about the tension between freedom and discipline in creative work. Can too much adherence to pattern stifle innovation, or is structure the only way to give meaning and coherence? Stevenson seems to suggest that some framework is necessary for poetry to be impactful. I’m also intrigued by her comment about family—does negotiating life’s rules influence her artistic rules? Could her evolving cooperation with others reflect a broader negotiation between personal expression and social responsibility?
TTung
I find Stevenson's balance between independence and structure fascinating. Does creating her own rules allow for a more authentic poetic voice, or could it risk chaos without the grounding of traditional patterns? I’m also curious about the relationship she draws between life and poetry—is her belief in order a reflection of personal philosophy as much as aesthetic preference? How might this approach influence readers’ interpretations or the way aspiring poets experiment with form?