The main difference is the number of words. \ r \ n \ r \ Seven laws are eight sentences and 56 words. \ r \ n \ r \ Seven verses are four sentences with 28 characters. \ r \ n \ r \ In practice, we should separate the seven laws from the seven verses. The seven laws should be neat, calm and grand. I don't advocate that the seven laws are written too lightly and beautifully. This style is incompatible with its constitution, and like Li Changji's fantasy style, it is not suitable for writing seven laws. Li Yishan's Seven Laws of Romance is touching and beautiful, but it is still refined and magnificent. Seven sections are suitable for beauty. Reading Xiao Du's seven poems, we are simply a group of fashionable beauties, charming, beautiful and amazing. Lao Du's Seven Laws are unsmiling gentlemen. Imagine a man winking at readers, and I'm afraid no one can adapt. However, there are no absolute things in the world. There are exceptions like Anita Mui and Leslie Cheung, let alone poetry. \ r \ n \ r \ Seven sentences are more detailed and seven sentences are more freehand. This freehand brushwork means that it is suitable for a wide range of perspectives. Taking photography as an analogy, seven sentences are like macro, seven sentences are like wide angle and five sentences are like telephoto, and the ancient style is closer to Mark. Du Fu's "Zaiwulang" wrote a very small thing, which still reflects the great feelings of the times and compassion. But it should not be empty, especially when writing current events or feelings. I have always felt that the gap between Liu Gaizhi and Xin You 'an in ci can be used for reference. This is not just a gap between literary talent and knowledge. Everyone's experience is different, and some things cannot be forced. When writing feelings, it is inevitable to be sticky and silly. It is often useless to have true feelings. If there is no true feelings, take some beautiful sentences to make up the numbers. The former gives people the impression that the writing is not satisfactory, while the latter is more common. If you can't say it well, it's neat. If you say it, it's just nonsense, and there is no real emotion in it. \ r \ n \ r \ From a technical point of view, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, four parts, even if there is no merit, people should remember that the key lies in the last two sentences, whether they are promoted on the basis of the previous ones or a big turn. You can also lay the groundwork for the first three sentences until the last one makes it clear that the big things come later, but it doesn't mean that the first two sentences can be casual. For example, Du Mu's "Screen": "Screen week _ painting a slim waist, long and half sold. Leaning against the jade window, I am jealous and charming. " The first sentence lays out the background, and the second sentence points out the key points in the general tone, covering up the turning point behind it. If this sentence simply continues to write the beauty on the picture, the later turning point will be less powerful. The third sentence shifts the focus to the protagonist, and the last sentence clarifies the main idea and carries forward the sentence. The structure is extremely tight and immovable. This structure is good, you can score 100, and the overall score of the poem is another matter. I don't advocate overemphasizing structure, and the charm of poetry is more important. \ r \ n \ r \ Writing seven laws, the foundation of learning and rearing is very important, not as important as the seven unique skills, and it can be a little tricky. When books are read less and vocabulary sentences are not changed, poetry is easy to fade and can't hold back. The specific writing methods of the seven laws, such as words, sentences, couplets and chapters, have been discussed in previous dynasties, and there are also special chapters on the Internet, each with its own reasons. You might as well do what you believe, most of which will lead to the same goal. As long as you can write a good poem, the path doesn't matter. Really good poetry has the power to reverse the habit of appreciation, rather than accommodating the common habit of appreciation. \ r \ n \ r \ Macro issues are easy to grasp, but one thing cannot be ignored. No matter what genre, poetry must have details. Li Shangyin "I was lying there in a white coat, when spring came, but I only thought about Baimancheng, where I couldn't go. There are two red mansions facing the cold, covered by rain, and a pearl curtain lamp shakes my lonely heart and goes home. The long road should be sad for the spring night, in the middle of the night, accompanied by a short dream interval. Jade _ Inza River Judah, I see a lone goose in a cloud of three thousand miles. " "The lantern on the pearl screen shakes my lonely heart" is so delicate and kind. Later generations often get fur similar to "a dream at a short interval in the middle of the night", and the result is a skeleton with skin. Without flesh and blood, there is no life. Without details, it is impossible to impress and win the trust of readers. The details should be written brilliantly, the eyes should be original and the technique should be authentic. You can easily point to jade chopsticks and play the piano and dance the crane, but you can't see its beauty, but you can see its vulgarity. \ r \ n \ r \ Where do the details come from? "The peach blossoms outside the bamboo are three or two, and the warm ducks by the river are prophets. Artemisia sphaerocephala has short reed buds all over the ground, which is the time for puffer fish to go up. " A few days ago, I taught my son to recite this poem, and suddenly I thought of places that ancient poetry could not reach. It is in such a place that modern people can't imagine, because we are not so closely connected with nature. Even if we write it, it's just a simulation, which is unnatural and not good. Poetry always comes from life, even if it is imagination, but we don't necessarily appreciate our own environment, so we have created a number of coquettish and moaning works. It's easy to criticize such a work, but what to replace it with is a big problem. People often say that they don't know what to write, they don't dig out the content from real life, and they don't want to simply imitate the ancients, so they will encounter this problem. \ r \ n \ r \ This problem is not hopeless, but it is not necessarily necessary and impossible to propose a complete solution in theory. The ancients' worship of the ancients did not prevent them from continuing to be imitated by future generations. The origin of culture comes down in one continuous line and is inseparable. It is said that our environment is very different from our predecessors, so our poems will be very different from our predecessors. This statement can be put on a specific creator. All or most people who write old-style poems are required to write works with the flavor of the times (this flavor of the times requires two completely different expressions and practices, which are a little far from the main idea and don't want to say more), and then go from one extreme to the other. \ r \ n \ r \ n nActually, I seldom spend too much time on a poem. It usually takes me a long time from having an idea to finishing an article. I am not good at reciting, and it is more important for me to capture the first feeling, so I seldom revise it. If I am not satisfied with an article, I would rather start rewriting it again than get used to mending it. This may not be better than reciting carefully, but it is suitable for me, a forgetful lazy person. Compared with studying the ultimate pursuit of poetry, it may be a more feasible method for most authors and works to find the most suitable and favorite writing style and expression. \ r \ n \ r \ n nWhether reading or writing, I always advocate the overall situation before writing. You have thoroughly studied the theory word for word, but you have no idea about the whole poem. So it is doubtful how useful this theory is in writing poetry. Even if the wording of the sentence is impeccable, it is still not enough to prove that this is a good poem. The quality of poetry is not shown. When we write poetry, we can't put ourselves in the position of editors of those poetry appreciation dictionaries. In the final analysis, what to write and how to write are not the core issues. In the end, only the work itself can speak.