What Rhymes With Freedom? Finding Liberation Within Limits

Once upon a time on the internet, I read a discussion board post that said something like, “I wrote this great poem but now I’m on the very last line and I need a word that rhymes with hippopotamus. Any ideas?”

And I chuckled, mostly at 1) hippopotamus!* and 2) the suggestion that the writer had started at the very beginning of the poem and written through it steadily and chronologically until reaching the end, just like writing a letter. Nothing could be further from how the poetry-writing process works for me.† (If it actually does work that way for anyone reading this, you are a genius and I would love to hear about your work in the comments.)

At any rate, suffice it to say that writing rhymed poetry imposes significant restrictions on the poet.

Writing a children’s picture book is likewise subject to strict limits, both in terms of the total word count (for my books, usually in the 400-900 range) as well as the list of vocabulary the author can reasonably use.‡

And doing both of those things together — writing a rhyming picture book — can sometimes feel like trying to build a full-scale model of the Eiffel Tower using only empty toilet paper rolls and duct tape.

However! Within those limits lies the magic. Sometimes too many choices can be paralyzing for a writer. If all I have available are four-inch tubes of cardboard and duct tape, there’s no point in wishing for aluminum foil or plastic bottles or glue. The poetic meter provides structure for my work and directs my focus.

Its da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM pattern dictates where the stresses should fall in every line of iambic tetrameter. For example, a two-syllable word with stress on the first syllable can never be placed at the end of a line (e.g., pumpkin, monster, shadow — because its rhythmic pattern is DUM da instead of da DUM). Likewise, any word that doesn’t have an obvious rhyme in English also cannot go at the end of a line. There are many more constraints, but you probably get the idea.

So as I write, I don’t waste time thinking about any possibility that won’t fit the pattern. And if I struggle for too long with trying to make one set of rhymes work, I abandon that effort and start over.

For instance, my book Spooky Things is described as “an introduction to classic Halloween characters.” The first time readers meet the witch, she’s brewing something in her cauldron in a cave in the forest. The text requirement is approximately 25-30 words (32 syllables) that not only rhyme in smooth couplets but also simultaneously convey the essential characteristics of a witch.

That’s not very many words. And given my audience of 3-6 year olds, the word cauldron was not on the preferred vocabulary list. Pot seemed like an obvious word choice to substitute for cauldron, with many easy rhymes, including but not limited to got, hot, lot, not, plot, spot, forgot, fought, caught, taught, ought and sought. My early thinking was also that the witch’s brew might turn those who drank it into a frog, or possibly a toad.

Here are a few of the many couplets I rejected for this page. I dismissed these pretty much immediately because they didn’t match the intended tone and ambiance of the book and/or they didn’t truly capture what I wanted to say — and also because I judged them to be inferior poetry:

The potion brewed atop this log/Can turn a prince into a frog.

The potion brewing on this log/Can turn someone into a frog.

Meh. Sure, there’s a fire under the cauldron, but using “on this log” instead of “in this pot” or “in this cave” in order to rhyme feels like an awkward stretch.

Don’t try the potion in her pot/Or you will change upon the spot.

You might become a frog if you/Could sample this strong witch’s brew.

This witch’s brew is almost done./What does it need? We’d better run!

I think that writing in the second person here is too scary for such a young audience. “Someone” is better than “you”, but then we lose both rhyme and meter. And aside from all that, none of this is very good poetry.


After a few hours of feeling frustrated by these issues, I realized that the limited utility of pot and frog was pushing me in the wrong direction. The text wasn’t flowing, and I was using up too many of my 32 syllables trying to plug gaps in the meter rather than move the story forward. So I started over.

Now, here is the final text as published (you can see the whole page here):

Nearby, within the witch’s cave,
She gives her magic wand a wave.
The potion brewing in this vat
Can turn someone into a bat.

In addition to helping fill out the first line, the word “nearby” was important to include because the previous page is also set in the forest. And using bats instead of frogs not only completes the rhyme but also efficiently introduces another Halloween character.

As Robert Frost famously said, “Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down.”§ To an extent, I agree with him. I have nothing against free verse – I read and enjoy a lot of it – but I think my own poetry is better when I work within a specific rhyming structure. Boundaries help focus my creativity. And at that magical “eureka” moment when everything suddenly clicks into place, it no longer feels like I’ve been working with cardboard and duct tape.

Although my giveaway for the hardcover release of Spooky Things ends tonight, another giveaway will shortly be starting for the newly published paperback edition. You can also watch the book trailer for Spooky Things here.

_________________________________________

*At least, I think it was hippopotamus. So many years have elapsed that all I can remember for certain is that it struck me as an unusual word to include in a poem, and a difficult one to rhyme.

†I usually find the first and last pages of a book to be the most challenging to write. Starting somewhere in the middle is much, much easier.

‡This is why Dr. Seuss is such a master of the art. The smaller the pool of words from which you can choose, the harder it is to craft a great rhyming poem.

§I know Robert Frost said something like this, but today I can’t seem to track down the original quotation or remember in which book I most recently read it. Despite the hazards of relying on internet citations, for the purposes of this post the most likely one credits a speech in Massachusetts in 1935.