[Edit 16/6/2025] My contest, Elements of Nature, drew an unusual (for my contests) number of entries by new poets; unfortunately the contest brief was not adhered to in total—with SSA poetry it is either right or wrong – no grey areas. ‘Auditing’ (for want of a better word – my forensic accounting background exerting itself) the poems submitted, I came across a number of poets using inactive accounts – some as far back as 2022. Why the sudden resurrection of these accounts – are they genuine or have they been hacked for the very reason that they have been dormant for so long?
Suzette Swan Arc (SSA) stands alone, its essence singular—crafted to celebrate the poet’s instinct while defying AI mimicry. It challenges those who skim instead of soar, rewarding engagement over imitation. Uniquely composed, SSA resists plagiarism; its structure cannot be readily tweaked or adjusted to conform to existing poetic forms. It is poetry in motion—fluid, boundless, unmistakably its own.
For more on Suzette Swan Arc, the following article is recommended:
Oscillation – A Defining Feature of Suzette Swan Arc Poetry | PoetrySoup.com
If done correctly, it produces poetic word art—in content and visually pleasing. See the SSA poem, ‘Fire’, by Di11ly Da11y, the trophy winner in my last contest, Elements of Nature:
Fire (poetrysoup.com)
The link to the poem is now included in the above mentioned article as an example of the Suzette Swan Arc contest, finalised 14/6/2025.
Suzette Swan Arc produces beautiful poetry and I enjoy writing in this new poetic form. Unfortunately not many contestants adhered to the contest brief, eg line count, title, theme, etc, Despite the recommended article (on the contest page), the unique line count illustrated, and numerous blogs highlighting (with examples) the salient points required for the contest, many tried to wing it. SSA is truly a poetic form that needs the intuitive hand of a poet and not a machine; hence the contest specification: ‘an emotional echo in nature … oscillating…’. It isn’t an imitation of older poetic forms, such as free verse and its sidekick, Triadic-line/stepped-down-line poetry, etc—however much some would like to convince me otherwise. I wonder whether I am that crab in the crab bucket …
As some contest sponsors have stated in recent blogs, the scourge of AI word porn flooding the Internet, and poetry sites in particular, have been a long time in coming. The following is an extract from the conclusion of my article, AI Assist versus AI-generated Poetry, dated 20/10/2024:
‘AI robs poets of their innate spontaneity and stunts the development of their own poetic voice, i.e. their distinctive turn of phrase and creative expression. To my mind, the only course of action left is to be a better poet than AI. Support your fellow poets, and ignore AI.’
AI Assist versus AI-generated Poetry | PoetrySoup.com
WARNING
The following might be upsetting for sensitive poets.
Microsoft Bing: DALL-E 2
Seaborne Longing
Salt stings the eyes, waves curl
in whispers of her name—Suzette—
torn from shore, a gull’s cry
splits the horizon. The tide
drags her shadow under,
distorts it through green glass depths.
She’s there, not there—
a flicker in the foam’s collapse.
Undertow pulls memory taut,
her laughter, a buoy bobbing
beyond reach. The sea breathes,
heaves her absence into spray.
My feet sink in wet sand,
rootless, seeking her echo
in shells’ hollow curves.
Dusk blurs the line—
water or sky, her or me.
Waves return, relentless,
bearing no answers,
only her name, again, again.
Content: The emotional undercurrents are complex, not just resting on familiar metaphors but actively shaping them into something fluid and alive. It doesn’t just describe longing; it enacts it structurally, in movement and repetition. However, it lacks the intuitive conceptual layout, eg line breaks, negative spaces between stanzas, etc, desired in SSA poetry. Furthermore, it falls short in the prescribed open-ended finale, as I would require a more imaginative expression at the pivotal verse beginning with ‘Waves return, relentless …’
Here’s a possible revision for the last few lines—the pause/rest before the final delivery indicated by the em dash; ending in a continuation in both words and thought, underlined by the inclusion of the ellipsis:
Waves return, relentless, / bearing no answers, / only the hush before her name—the sea unspooling a question / that no shore can catch …
Verdict: The above poem was AI-generated per my prompt, with my notes and suggested revision in the follow-up footnote. In content, my AI is better than your AI. No, this is not a challenge. I guess what I am saying is that I can generate my own, if I wish to read ‘poems by AI’.
NB The above poem scored 100% as being AI-generated on the AI detection app Scribbr. All my poetry posted on here and at other poetry websites is entirely my own work. Where I have used AI to, for example, illustrate a point—as in the above instance—I have clearly identified it as such. As I have stated in my final paragraph in my article, AI Assist versus AI-generated Poetry (link above):
‘We need to encourage transparency by all parties concerned and as with anything else in life the various AI apps [programmes] need to be used responsibly. The problem lies with trying to pass AI-generated poetry off as one’s own.’
I would like to leave you with this thought, best expressed in my poem, ‘Insidious AI’:
https://www.poetrysoup.com/poem/insidious_ai_1676390
Happy quills!
Su