What do you think?
Rate this book
De/Compositions
This original, illuminating, and sometimes quite funny poetry anthology is primarily concerned with a fundamental and familiar How can we tell good poetry from bad? To illustrate precisely why these 101 poems, many of them well-loved classics, are so accomplished and remarkable, the prize-winning poet, author, critic, and veteran teacher Snodgrass herein rewrites them―wrongly. De/Compositions tellingly presents these rewrites next to the originals―by poets ranging from William Shakespeare to William Stafford―and thus we can more fully appreciate the artistry of these astonishing poems word by word, line by line, stanza by stanza. This book will appeal to anyone studying the craft and/or creativity that good poems demand.
285 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2001
3 people are currently reading
112 people want to read
About the author
W.D. Snodgrass
85 books47 followersWilliam De Witt Snodgrass, pseudonym S. S. Gardons, is an American poet and a 1960 Pulitzer Prize for Poetry winner.
Snodgrass's first poems appeared in 1951, and throughout the 1950's he published in some of the most prestigious magazines: Botteghe Oscure, Partisan Review, The New Yorker, The Paris Review and The Hudson Review. However, in 1957, five sections from a sequence entitled Heart's Needle were included in Hall, Pack and Simpson's anthology, New Poets of England and America, and these were to mark a turning-point. When Lowell had been shown early versions of these poems, in 1953, he had disliked them, but now he was full of admiration.
By the time Heart's Needle was published, in 1959, Snodgrass had already won the The Hudson Review Fellowship in Poetry and an Ingram Merrill Foundation Poetry Prize. However, his first book brought him more: a citation from the Poetry Society of America, a grant from the National Institute of Arts, and, most important of all, 1960's Pulitzer Prize in Poetry. It is often said that Heart's Needle inaugurated confessional verse. Snodgrass disliked the term. Still, it should be pointed out that the genre he was reviving here seemed revolutionary to most of his contemporaries, reared as they had been on the anti-expressionistic principles of the New Critics. Snodgrass's confessional work was to have a profound effect on many of his contemporaries, amongst them, most importantly, Robert Lowell.
Snodgrass's first poems appeared in 1951, and throughout the 1950's he published in some of the most prestigious magazines: Botteghe Oscure, Partisan Review, The New Yorker, The Paris Review and The Hudson Review. However, in 1957, five sections from a sequence entitled Heart's Needle were included in Hall, Pack and Simpson's anthology, New Poets of England and America, and these were to mark a turning-point. When Lowell had been shown early versions of these poems, in 1953, he had disliked them, but now he was full of admiration.
By the time Heart's Needle was published, in 1959, Snodgrass had already won the The Hudson Review Fellowship in Poetry and an Ingram Merrill Foundation Poetry Prize. However, his first book brought him more: a citation from the Poetry Society of America, a grant from the National Institute of Arts, and, most important of all, 1960's Pulitzer Prize in Poetry. It is often said that Heart's Needle inaugurated confessional verse. Snodgrass disliked the term. Still, it should be pointed out that the genre he was reviving here seemed revolutionary to most of his contemporaries, reared as they had been on the anti-expressionistic principles of the New Critics. Snodgrass's confessional work was to have a profound effect on many of his contemporaries, amongst them, most importantly, Robert Lowell.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 3, 2017
Fun concept for a book, though I was initially somewhat ambivalent actually reading it, especially since there's very little actual commentary. But in the end I think it worked well, I enjoyed it, and the author chose overall a very good selection of poems to work with. The book is divided into sections, so you have an idea about what aspect of each poem we're focusing on (i.e. what aspect the de/composition is going to mess with). I thought the first few sections were the most interesting, where many of the de/compositions were basically like paraphrases, so you could compare approximately the same content or message said in both a mundane way and an excellent way. Towards the end I was just skimming more of the de/compositions.
March 17, 2008
Wonderful selection of poems. Snodgrass's de/compositions of each poem illuminates the enduring qualities of the original. The book is divided into different sections that focus on particular characteristics of a poem. At the end of each section, Snodgrass offers commentary on how the original poems differ from his own takes. Some of his poems are good on their own, but not quite as good as the original. This is a wonderful book of poetry for anyone who wants to see why some poems are better than others or for anyone beginning their study of poetry at the high school or college level.
June 1, 2015
This is a book full of great poems that have been changed somehow. This is a great resource for Language Arts teachers everywhere. The author takes classic poetry and alters it. As a teacher, I will use these original poem along with their changed for to discuss the impact of "writing moves." The possibilities for using this text are endless.
December 3, 2016
What makes great poems great? Who knows? But what makes them bad is dull language, spotty rhythm, and lack of imagination. By putting great poems next to cheap imitations Snodgrass makes their language shine more brilliantly, and promotes understanding and appreciation in the process. If you're interested in finding the poetry in poems this is a useful handbook.
June 14, 2019
I first encountered "De/Compositions: 101 Good Poems Gone Wrong" as a text book for an undergraduate English course I had to take to build up my humanities credits before I could be accepted into a Master’s Degree program in English at the University of Central Oklahoma. Author W. D. Snodgrass’s idea, to take 101 highly-regarded poems, from Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare to Donald Hall’s 1990 “The Man in the Dead Machine,” and turn them into something less than great, is an interesting one, particularly as an academic exercise. He groups the poems into five general categories—abstract and general versus concrete and specific; undercurrents; the singular voice; metrics and music; and structure and climax—and focuses his “de/composition” work in these areas.
Snodgrass, a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Delaware, is both a good enough poet to do this, and one not good enough. Why do I say that?
On the one hand, when “de/composing” each poem, he maintains its poetic structure, in particular its form and its rhyme and beat patterns, while reducing the qualities that made the poem stand out. With some poems, he even provides alternative versions with different beat patterns or number of beats per line. In a few cases, he even shows early drafts by the poet him- or herself, so the reader can see how the poem developed.
All of this is fine, even excellent… for an advanced poetry student who has the time and guidance to study each poem and absorb the lessons the “de/composition” teaches.
For the less advanced student or reader, however, these changes can be too subtle to be easily understood. This is why Snodgrass is perhaps not good enough. For these readers or students, a revised poem in a much more advanced stage of decomposition—that is, one that is far more amateurish—would have been more instructive. It takes no small degree of skill, but also a particular turn of mind, to turn a fine poem into a piece of hack-work.
Perhaps Snodgrass assumed that by the time a student was presented with this book, he or she would have progressed beyond the raw amateur stage and be ready for more advanced instruction. Or perhaps he assumed that even the beginner could, with proper instruction, be guided to perceive the differences between the canon-quality work and the “de/composed” one. These are, of course, just guesses.
Snodgrass does provide brief discussions of why each “de/composed” piece fails at the end of each section. I would have found it helpful to have those summaries at the beginning, so I could know what to look for, rather than having to remember the injuries inflicted on dozens of poems after I’d read them all.
In sum, then, the value of this book depends on how it’s used and who’s using it. For an advanced student in a semester-long poetry class, or a non-student poet looking for ways to improve their craft and with the time to study these works closely, De/Compositions will be a valuable addition to their knowledge base. For others, not so much.
Snodgrass, a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Delaware, is both a good enough poet to do this, and one not good enough. Why do I say that?
On the one hand, when “de/composing” each poem, he maintains its poetic structure, in particular its form and its rhyme and beat patterns, while reducing the qualities that made the poem stand out. With some poems, he even provides alternative versions with different beat patterns or number of beats per line. In a few cases, he even shows early drafts by the poet him- or herself, so the reader can see how the poem developed.
All of this is fine, even excellent… for an advanced poetry student who has the time and guidance to study each poem and absorb the lessons the “de/composition” teaches.
For the less advanced student or reader, however, these changes can be too subtle to be easily understood. This is why Snodgrass is perhaps not good enough. For these readers or students, a revised poem in a much more advanced stage of decomposition—that is, one that is far more amateurish—would have been more instructive. It takes no small degree of skill, but also a particular turn of mind, to turn a fine poem into a piece of hack-work.
Perhaps Snodgrass assumed that by the time a student was presented with this book, he or she would have progressed beyond the raw amateur stage and be ready for more advanced instruction. Or perhaps he assumed that even the beginner could, with proper instruction, be guided to perceive the differences between the canon-quality work and the “de/composed” one. These are, of course, just guesses.
Snodgrass does provide brief discussions of why each “de/composed” piece fails at the end of each section. I would have found it helpful to have those summaries at the beginning, so I could know what to look for, rather than having to remember the injuries inflicted on dozens of poems after I’d read them all.
In sum, then, the value of this book depends on how it’s used and who’s using it. For an advanced student in a semester-long poetry class, or a non-student poet looking for ways to improve their craft and with the time to study these works closely, De/Compositions will be a valuable addition to their knowledge base. For others, not so much.
January 1, 2024
What finally inspired me to finish this was Elizabeth Barrett Browning. She isn't in this book, but I remembered I had this collection while I was searching for her in the collections I have. After exhausting my supply of books that did contain her work (surprisingly few tbh, but overall a good amount), I decided to revisit this collection. I was in the headspace to try to appreciate poetic form and "musicality" which is the section of this book I still had left to read. I definitely came back with a greater appreciation for Gerard Manley Hopkins and William Carlos Williams. Someday I hope I can revisit some of the other authors and have grown to a greater appreciation/understanding of them too.
June 13, 2011
Adjustments to classic poems by the authors or others. Shows the value of rewrite, and also what the poem loses by updating language and word use. Shows the impact of a change of meter or rhyme. An excellent "textbook". I'll be using samples at Writers' Group to help people write their own poems on the topic at hand, reveal the original inspiration, and then have the group use the famous as a jumping off point for their own work, using matching meter--or not.
June 8, 2007
The "bad" examples can be pretty painful.
January 25, 2008
This looks really interesting.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews