The synthetic ode is a three part poetic form that is inspired by the ancient Greek Pindaric ode and the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Before explaining the synthetic ode, I think it makes sense to talk about the Pindaric ode from which it is inspired.
Some Background
The Pindaric ode consists of three strophes (or stanzas), the first two being isometric to one another called the strophe and antistrophe and the last being metrically independent called the epode. As was customary for the time, Pindar wrote his odes as occasional poems, and intended them to be performed on stage, with a left chorus singing the strophe, a right chorus singing the antistrophe, and an orator reciting the epode. As such, these were also called choral odes. More detail can be found at Encyclopaedia Britannica online.
Around the time I encountered the Pindaric ode I also stumbled across the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and it occurred to me that some variant of the ode form and this approach to dialectic were a match made in heaven. However, I was not interested in using the medium of poetry to introduce, contradict, and resolve an argument. I saw a much broader and more abstract application for these three principles that could be refined and applied to the use of poetic expression. They could be used to visually and symbolically explore contrasts (theses and antitheses) followed by an exploration of how these contrasts complement one another or combine to create a whole (syntheses).
Contrasts can be anything. For instance, a basic contrast could involve colors, such as black and white. The synthesis of this contrast could be grey. Yet the colors themselves might symbolically serve as a vehicle for any number of meanings—a white wedding, a black funeral, a grey disposition. A more complex contrast and synthesis could involve two individuals, a man and woman for instance, whose personalities, interests, and/or idiosyncrasies complement and/or complete one another. Two examples of this approach can be found in my poems “Ode for Joy” and “Coming Together.”
One important characteristic of the synthetic ode as I’ve conceived it is ambiguity. This should ideally force the writer to use imagery and metaphor to explore the contrasts and their syntheses.
Now that we have a sense of the inspiration and premise behind the synthetic ode, let’s delve into the structure of the form as I’ve conceived it.
Form
The synthetic ode is defined by both structural and semantic rules. The structural rules derive in part from the original structure of the Pindaric ode, but also include elements intended to help facilitate the exploration of contrasts and their syntheses. I think this is important because such rules create a challenge that forces the poet to rise to the occasion, inspiring a conscious refinement of language and flow.
The semantic rules are essential to what I feel should be the depictive nature of the form. Without them the poet can just say whatever he or she feels and thinks without actually exercising some of the the more abstract, aesthetic, and visually expressive attributes of language such as imagery, metaphor, and symbolism. These rules are also intended to promote the use of abstract language, which should hopefully create a surrealist feel, thus ensuring a strong, visually potent outcome. So bear this in mind as you study the rules below, whether you’re reading this article to better understand the idea behind the form or to learn how to try your own hand at it.
Structural Rules
The synthetic ode is always titled.
It is organized into three individual poems we can refer to as segments.
Since this is an ode variant, the segments can also be referred to by their position within the poem, the first being the strophe, the second the antistrophe, and the third the epode.
Individual segments are not subtitled. Instead, they are headed by an alphanumeric marker such as 1, 2, and 3; A, B, and C; I, II, and III; etc.
The strophe and antistrophe can be in any format, so long as they are metrically identical to one another, line for line, syllable for syllable.
So if the strophe contains three quatrains, the first in iambic pentameters, the second in trochaic tetrameters, and the last in anapestic hexameters, then the antistrophe will be structured the exactly the same.
This is no easy feat, especially if the segments get long and the meters become unusual and complex. But, done well, the effect can be absolutely striking.
The epode can be in any format, so long as it does not replicate the format of the strophe/antistrophe.
This can be subtle, such as using a Petrarchan sonnet for the epode while using Shakespearean sonnets for the strophe/antistrophe, as I did with “Coming Together,” or this can be much more dramatic such as using what on first glance looks like free verse for the strophe/antistrophe and tetrametric quintains with patterned end-line parallelisms for the epode, as I did with “Samsara.”
The key is to do something different for the epode.
No single line can be longer than the octameter.
I believe that lines longer than an octameter effectively break the mold of a given form and leave the realm of poetry for prose. This restriction is stated for the sole purpose of hopefully maintaining the integrity of the synthetic ode.
For each segment, there is at least one point of parallelism for every two lines, preferably more.
So if your segment is 16 lines long, it will contain at least 8 points of parallelism.
This can manifest in any number of ways, but to give a concrete example for reference, end-line rhyme between two lines would count as a point of parallelism. So, in the case of a 16 line segment, if you were to use end-line rhyme for all your points of parallelism, the lines could be organized into 4 quatrains, each using the abab rhyme scheme to give you 8 points of parallelism.
But rhyme is just one out of many possibilities. Parallelisms can also be semantic (like “mind,” “thought” and “id”) or any of the various alternatives to rhyme, such as with frame rhyme (“spring” and “sprung”). Potential parallelisms far exceed these simple examples.
For the strophe and antistrophe, parallelisms are not restricted to the scope of their own segments. This means they may occur between the segments.
There are ample examples of this in my poem “Samsara.” Just read the strophe and antistrophe in tandem and the parallelisms that exist between them will leap out at you.
Each synthetic ode must be unique in structure.
This is to say that one author should never use the same structure twice. As I understand it, this was actually a characteristic of Pindar’s choral odes. So in a way there is an element of free verse involved despite the rules and restrictions placed on the form because the structure must be arrived at in a spontaneous manner each time one is written.
Semantic Rules
No first person personal pronouns are used anywhere within the poem.
The idea is to remove one’s self as a direct frame of reference, making it much easier to expand the thought, insight, understanding, observation, meditation, etc. behind the subject matter in a more fluid and expansive manner than could ever be managed if the main subject were one’s self.
Second and third person personal pronouns are permitted, however, as these may be sometimes be essential to the content.
The strophe uses imagery and metaphor to introduce and explore a thesis, on any subject.
This is not a thesis in the logical sense, but a subject of focus that becomes the first half of two contrasts.
To provide two examples, in “Samsara” the strophe explores birth—or coming into being—and in “Transmogrification” it explores the innocent, creative wonder of a child.
The antistrophe uses imagery and metaphor to introduce and explore an antithesis.
Again, not in the sense of logic or dialectic. The antithesis here develops a contrast to the thesis, which can be an opposing force, an opposite meaning, a contrasting aesthetic, and so on.
Extending the example from the previous point, the antistrophe in “Samsara” explores death—or going out of being—while in “Transmogrification” it explores the addictive violence and desensitizing effects of modern video games.
The epode attempts to in some way use imagery and metaphor to synthesize the contrasts set forth by the thesis and antithesis.
Here the goal is not to resolve an argument or reveal some fundamental truth, but simply to explore some aspect of the contrasts relative to one another. This could involve unity, conflict, complement, involvement, resistance, or endless other interactions between the contrasts.
Concluding the examples from the previous two points, “Samsara” explores impermanence as a synthesis for birth and death—coming and going—while “Transmogrification” explores a soldier on the field of battle as a synthesis for the creative wonder of a child and the interactions children have with violent video games.
There’s no question that this is a complex art form. What makes it so is as much to do with the rigid structure as with the freedom one still has within its framework. The synthetic ode is intended to facilitate the creation of “art poetry.” This is to say, poetry for poetry’s sake, not just for the sake of spewing out personal opinions and feelings. Yet the hope is that those who take an interest in exploring this form will also manage to bring it down to earth to create immersive, thought provoking, emotionally charged poetry.
I would say the main challenge with this form is the unveiling of relevant, poignant contrasts that can be presented and explored using imagery and metaphor. The secondary challenge no doubt is inventing a new form that feels somehow natural and inevitable to the subject matter while at the same time maintaining accentual isometry between the strophe and antistrophe.
Definitely peruse the synthetic odes I have posted here at Form and Formlessness to gain further insight into the form. Also feel free to post links to any synthetic odes you write in the comments. As its creator, I’m likely to read and give feedback on how well I think the poem adheres to the structure and spirit of the form.
