[Robert J. Clawson]

How do you feel about rhyming dictionaries and their cousins, synonym finders?

Bob

[Richard Wakefield]

For me, rhyming dictionaries and thesauruses, along with etymological dictionaries and the OED and a desk dictionary, work as mnemonics and heuristics. They often help me remember the word that's tickling the edge of my consciousness, and other times they lead me to a word much better than the ones that were filling my head with their cackles and shrieks. It sometimes seems as if writing a poem is really a process of mining it from the dark tunnels and caverns of the language, as if all poetry is already there waiting to be unearthed, and my various reference books are little hints about where to dig.
I know that Frost, for one, took great pride in never using a rhyming dictionary. Of course, he was a much better poet than I am, and I'll take whatever help I can find. But I understand why some poets might be reluctant to use them. There does seem to be something vaguely inauthentic about browsing through a book of words piled up like cordwood.
Other poets? I'd like to hear others' experiences.
Richard

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Richard Wakefield:
There does seem to be something vaguely inauthentic about browsing through a book of words piled up like cordwood.
Other poets? I'd like to hear others' experiences.
Richard[/b]

I find the OED fascinating. I don't think cordwood; I think library. If we depend solely upon our personal word hoard, we're limiting our scope, our potential.

Bob

[Alan Sullivan]

Tim and I once talked rhyme dictionaries with Richard Wilbur, who mildly disdains the use of such crutches.

Salvador Dali, when asked whether his art was inspired by drugs, supposedly said "I am drugs."

By the same token, Wilbur is rhyme.

Tim occasionally resorts to my old copy of the Clement Wood dictionary.

I've sworn by Wood since the 1970's, when I read praise of his work from Stephen Sondheim. I was songwriting in those days, and Sondheim's word was good enough for me.

Unfortunately the recent reprint of Wood is a disaster, ruinously reorganized by one Ronald Bogus. What an apt name!

A.S.

[Joel Lamore]

Rhyming dictionaries are useful, though most have flaws. I have always suspected that those who disdain their use either don't write rhymed verse in the first place, or resort to painstakingly putting each phoneme in turn in front of the rhyme sound--definitely no better than a rhyming dictionary, and the do-it-yourselfer gets no points from me for reinventing the wheel. Also, the rhyming dictionary can be useful for words that have more than one syllable. If left to one's own devices, one or two syllable words is all one is likely to come up with--even when inspired.

Finally, on what basis do those who disdain the rhyming dictionaries do so? I don't think most rationales would survive close inspection.

[graywyvern]

i avidly read all the rhyming dictionaries i could
find (espy's is by far the best). thesauruses on the
other hand are junk--they promote fuzzy thinking. it's
the differences between words that matter...

but the only way i use any of them is, after having
extracted the ones i found amusing into a notebook,
i wrote a dozen novelty poems & never opened them
again.

[nyctom]

Well I love them and use them. And like Richard, I think any reference material that helps is a godsend. Maps, dictionaries, thesauri, crib sheets. Whatever. Sorry Alan, but I think Wilbur's attitude is a kind of snobbery. It really all boils down to the poem doesn't it? Who cares what crutches helped get you to it? I mean, it's not like that Mythological Anthology Of Great Poems is going to add a proviso: WARNING: RHYMING DICTIONARY USED. PROCEED WITH EXTREME CAUTION.

I have never heard of the rhyming dictionary you cited, but if Sondheim sang its praises it must be pretty nifty. I'm no theatre queen, but Sondheim is a pretty nifty lyricist himself. Too bad that edition is out of print.

[Will Sens]

WARNING:Attention Deficite Writer At Work
How can you go wrong with a rhyming dictionary? I personally don't understand writers who claim to write, "strictly from their head".Impossible!I've met writers before who wouldn't read other poet's works because they wanted their's to be totally,"original",untainted by the styles,forms,and words of other writers.There is no such thing as originality.Every time you open your eyes,when you wake up,you're taking in outside inform- ation.Perhaps they know not their mission in writing.
Poets and writers in general are just secret agents of sorts. Spies who report their perspective ideas and experiences in their own quasicryptic or even cryptic format.Poetry.I use every information source I can to help me translate.Those who can decode it,feel it,and therefore are a part of the unity.We make up the grassroots of culture.We understand society and for the most part are perceptive enough to see it for what it really is.Those who can not understand poetry and art will buy it in a pair of GAP jeans when our culture becomes trend in 5 or 10 years.Of course by that time we'll be 10 years ahead reporting on what's really going on.What's the best way to keep up the momentum? Using every rescource we have to create the most masterful wordsmithing.<u>Text</u><u>Text</u>

[Alan Sullivan]

Oi veh. Grassroots like those could use a good outbreak of cutworms.

A.S.

[Robert J. Clawson]

Alan,

You've dropped a blivit. I wouldn't have that word without seeking a rime for privet.

Bob