Is Poetry a lowly form of writing?

[Jtolj]

I think it is. It is the easiest to make, the least enjoyable, and the least meaningful. I despise bad poetry and I'd say 7/10 of poetry is bad and 2/10 is mediocre. The problem with poetry is that all it is just like words. It's just not a fun experience. Many times it is just an excersise in writing. The main problem is poem's dont' go anywhere. They are too short to make do much and their structure disallows them from saying much and there's so much that you to sift through all the crap. Poems can work but they're hardly anything, unless in a song.

Music, is a different example. My most favorite poetry is usually either musical or visual or storytelling "poetry" found in other works.

[Mark F.]

I'd suggest you try reading more poetry. And try reading it better.

[Zippy]

I'm not a fan of poetry. I can count on the fingers of one hand the poems which I have liked and cannot write good poetry no matter how hard I try.

However, I disagree that poetry is a 'lowly form of writing'; it is in fact the highest form. Poetry was around long before prose, it is a lot more difficult and challenging, and, when done properly, can have a profound effect on the reader - far more profound than prose can.

You're absolutely right that the majority of poetry is rubbish, but I think this is largely due to people's perception. During the 1950s and 60s (with the increased popularity of the Beat Poets) poetry was perceived as being at its best when it was spontaneous and formless. Many of the Beat Poets produced effective poetry which seemed to be inspired and effortless. In reality they worked hard at this ‘effortlessness’ – they needed a firm grasp of the rules of poetry before they could break those rules. Imitators did not have this grasp and churned out empty rubbish. Poetry and people’s perception of it suffered as a result.

When done properly, poetry is an intensely demanding art form to produce. Writing verse using poetic conventions and techniques (meter, rhyme, simile, metaphor, enjambment, alliteration, etc.) is amazingly difficult and requires intense concentration. In the modern world with all its distractions, there are not many people left who can find the space and silence they need to produce good poetry.

The other thing to remember is that often those works of prose which we regard as literary masterpieces work so well and have become masterpieces because the writers use poetic techniques to give their writing a lyrical quality. Without poetic techniques there would be no good prose, only flat and turgid writing.

Zippy.

[PeterL]

"Ninety percent of everything is crap." So I don't completely disagree with you. There is a great deal of writing that is called poetry that is poorly punctuated prose, and I can't stand that kind of poetry. My preference in poetry is for Pre-Romantic poetry from the Neo-Classical and Renaissance periods in English literature, but I also agree with Zippy.

[overmydeadbody]

I think it is. It is the easiest to make, .

Poetry is far harder to write than prose.:) The restrictions of communication in the human language is only reallyu understood when u try compress thoughts, feelings and sensual experience into a few lines.


the least enjoyable, and the least meaningful.

Poetry is highly enjoyable.:) when you kow a poem well it makes your brain fizz. Unlike you suggest, putting music to poetry is destructive:flare: . THe lines have their own music. Poetry also has the potential to have far greater and deeper meaning than prose. the use of symbolic language, rhyme, thythm and tone can give a few words personal and 'surplus meaning' than a more literal and formal approach to language cannot achieve. Everytime I return to reading certain poem i find different meaning and depths to the work.

Poetry is the greatest, most challenging and engaging form of literature. Want to discuss it further? What do you know or think of this poem? A famous first-world war elegy by owen on the injustice of the indescriminate slaughter of conscripts in trench warfare

Anthem For Doomed Youth

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
-Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,-
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.


What candles may be held to speed them all?
Not in the hands of boys but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of good-byes.
The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds

[Rosalind]

I'm with Andy on this. It's true that a lot of poetry is rubbish and a lot is mediocre, as you say, Jtolj, but surely that only proves how difficult it is to write? It's definately not 'the easiest to make.' I think most people agree that it's harder to write a short story/article/letter than a long one, and poetry is by its very nature the most concise form of writing. Prose gives you a little room to mess up. Poetry is all about putting the exact, perfect word in the exact, perfect place. There is no room for error.

Jtolj, you say that poems don't go anywhere, and that you're favorites are usually music or storytelling. It might be nice to read more of the latter. Some of the most exciting stories in western literature--'Beowulf,' 'The Oddysey,' 'The Iliad'--are poems. The majority of Shakespeare's canon is arguably poetry.

It sounds like you've been reading a lot of highly 'cutting edge,' abstract type poetry. I feel the same way about that kind of writing as I do about modern art--I don't like it. No, that's not fair. When it works, it's great, but most of the time it's inaccesible and incredibly pretentious. Please, please try to get away from that sort of bollocks and give the rest of the genre a chance.

By the way, Zippy makes a great point about poetic style in prose writing. I need to try that next time someone says that my analysis is 'too, well, analytical.' ;)

[Virgil]

I think it is. It is the easiest to make, the least enjoyable, and the least meaningful. I despise bad poetry and I'd say 7/10 of poetry is bad and 2/10 is mediocre. The problem with poetry is that all it is just like words. It's just not a fun experience. Many times it is just an excersise in writing. The main problem is poem's dont' go anywhere. They are too short to make do much and their structure disallows them from saying much and there's so much that you to sift through all the crap. Poems can work but they're hardly anything, unless in a song.

Music, is a different example. My most favorite poetry is usually either musical or visual or storytelling "poetry" found in other works.

JT, I supported you on another thread, but here you come across as a dolt. If it's so easy, then let me see you write a good poem.

[MikeK]

I think it is. It is the easiest to make, the least enjoyable, and the least meaningful. I despise bad poetry and I'd say 7/10 of poetry is bad and 2/10 is mediocre.

A bit contradictory, it seems to me. If 9/10 of poetry is mediocre to bad, how exactly is it the easiest to write? Wouldn't the lack of good poetry (in your opinion) prove just the opposite; that it's difficult to write well?

[Logos]

Virgil actually Jtolj has written some poems and kindly shared them with us :eek2:

"Two Poems that defy poetic convention in favor innovation"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19795

"This is a poem I wrote from a screenplay."

So, end this life of mine, a place
I can no longer find solace. I seek
it's end so that solace I may find
in it's absence. Farewell giver of
truth but mostly lies. Farewell
giver of peace but mostly conflict.
Farewell giver of order but mostly
chaos. Farewell giver of light but
mostly dark. Farewell giver of
happiness but mostly sadness.
Farewell giver of honor but mostly
shame.Farewell giver of love but mostly
hate. I fear not the reaper, but
rather welcome him... or her.

Should a poem like this that relies on theme rather than words be considered in a greater range?
What do you think of the contrasting styles between theme and wordplay which occur in the world of poetry? I personal do not like overly wordy poems unless it is a word joke. I think theme is superior in getting its point across with words serving as representations of theme rather the words being the vocal point.

"Two Poems that defy poetic convention in favor innovation"

I do Wonder
Winter's snow a upon. The sweet
things around I like, and make me
think it does. I wonder. I wonder
about where it came from. Where it
ends. Where I end. Where came from
I did. For all the snow knows the
Glenson. Ruf. Ruf. Ruf. Why?
Wonder. Wonder I do. Ruf. Ruf. Ruf.
Ruf. Arr, matey. Wonder. Wonder.
Wonder. Wonder. Wonder. Wonder.
Wonder. Wonder. Wonder I do.

The Suicide Note
So, end this life of mine, a place
I can no longer find solace. I seek
it's end so that solace I may find
in it's absence. Farewell giver of
truth but mostly lies. Farewell
giver of peace but mostly conflict.
Farewell giver of order but mostly
chaos. Farewell giver of light but
mostly dark. Farewell giver of
happiness but mostly sadness.
Farewell giver of honor but mostly
shame. Farewell giver of love but mostly
hate. I fear not the reaper, but
rather welcome him... or her.

[Virgil]

Virgil actually Jtolj has written some poems and kindly shared them with us :eek2:


:eek2: :blush: Oh thanks, Logos. I apologize for that crack JT.



Should a poem like this that relies on theme rather than words be considered in a greater range?
What do you think of the contrasting styles between theme and wordplay which occur in the world of poetry? I personal do not like overly wordy poems unless it is a word joke. I think theme is superior in getting its point across with words serving as representations of theme rather the words being the vocal point.
I don't mind wordiness. Actually Shakespeare is extremely wordy. But words have to work together as a system. But I've said this before, poetry is charged language. It doesn't matter if it's wordy or concise, but by charged I mean that the language is outside the common. A metaphor or simile or a vivid image or coordinated sounds and rhythms charge the language, as long as it's not a cliche. Cliche is the ultimate common place language.

[holograph]

Perhaps, my friend, you are basing this on the poetry you have written and so gratiously shared wth us, in which case I would have to agree with you. But I disagree with your anti-poetry thesis in general. It is your choice what you like and what you don't like, but poetry is an art that is not as easy to make as you perceive. Poetry, in fact, came before prose, and poetry is much harder to write than prose. Some people just don't have the touch, and that's A. O.K.

[ktd222]

Music, is a different example. My most favorite poetry is usually either musical or visual or storytelling "poetry" found in other works

May I ask if you have any favorite poems or poets?


They are too short to make do much and their structure disallows them from saying much and there's so much that you to sift through all the crap. Poems can work but they're hardly anything, unless in a song.

Maybe the structures intent is not to 'say' as much, but to 'show.'

[bazarov]

I think it is. It is the easiest to make, the least enjoyable, and the least meaningful. I despise bad poetry and I'd say 7/10 of poetry is bad and 2/10 is mediocre. The problem with poetry is that all it is just like words. It's just not a fun experience. Many times it is just an excersise in writing. The main problem is poem's dont' go anywhere. They are too short to make do much and their structure disallows them from saying much and there's so much that you to sift through all the crap. Poems can work but they're hardly anything, unless in a song.

Music, is a different example. My most favorite poetry is usually either musical or visual or storytelling "poetry" found in other works.

I'm a novel fan, but I completly disagree with you. Maybe you just don't like it and then you can't get it all; try to read them more...Music!?!? Britney is more popular then Pushkin...:bawling:

[stlukesguild]

Jtolj- Is Poetry a lowly form of writing?
I think it is. It is the easiest to make, the least enjoyable, and the least meaningful. I despise bad poetry and I'd say 7/10 of poetry is bad and 2/10 is mediocre. The problem with poetry is that all it is just like words. It's just not a fun experience. Many times it is just an excersise in writing. The main problem is poem's dont' go anywhere. They are too short to make do much and their structure disallows them from saying much and there's so much that you to sift through all the crap. Poems can work but they're hardly anything, unless in a song.

Music, is a different example. My most favorite poetry is usually either musical or visual or storytelling "poetry" found in other works.

SLG- Personally I think you were on the mark with your first response, Virgil. The notion that poetry is the easiest literary form is just plain absurd. Perhaps it is easy to make poetry poorly. I think Thomas Disch suggested that a good deal of contemporary poetry doesn't seem to be more than mediocre prose broken up into something that visually "looks" like poetry... "snapped prose" as he called it:

Take any piece of prose you like
and snap it into lines of verse
like this, using the end of the line

as a kind of comma. You can create
a further sense of shapliness
by grouping the snapped prose in stanzas, so.

The ability to compose a beautiful piece of poetry, however... while it may take less time than the composition of an epic novel... is no mean feat. The searching for just the perfect words... words that often work on a number of levels: musically, in terms of sound... visually in terms of the appearance on the page... words that meet a desired rhyme, rhythm, assonnance, consonnance... allusion, metaphore, etc... etc... to me seems quite challenging... and more than difficult to do well. Furthermore, to suggest that a poem is "easy" because of its compact form is as ridiculous as the suggestion that small paintings (Vermeer, Van Eyck, Degas) or smaller musical form (Bach's fugues, Beethoven's sonatas, Chopin's pollonaises, etc...) are somehow lesser art forms than any given big painting or symphony.

As for the argument that 7/10ths of all poetry is bad... I don't completely disagree... indeed, I would suggest that rather 90% (if not more) of all art is mediocre at best, with the remaining 10% showing some promise, and less than 1% given over to the truly great. This is probably the same now as it was in the past... and is the same for almost any art form.

I have to wonder, however, about Jtolj's ability at a deep analysis of the imagined problems or flaws with poetry. "It's all just like words"??! Well... like... isn't like all literature like just like you know... WORDS? I'm guessing from the comments about poetry not going anywhere (as well as the referrence to the storytelling elements in a song) that Jtolj is imagining that poetry (like all literature, no doubt:rolleyes:) should focus upon character and narrative development. Undoubtedly, there are great works of poetry that are also brilliant narratives (Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Dante, Milton, Browning, etc...) but poetry often works by means of suggestion... allusion... atmosphere... etc... The strength of the great poem is that the form... (the structure... the music... the actual words...) and the content... (the concepts... the narrative... the ideas/feelings coveyed) are so intertwined as to be inseperable. When this truly works it is magical... enthralling... breathtaking... although I'm not certain it might be defined as "fun". "Pleasurable"... certainly, but then again I am one who has long realized that the pleasure afforded by a great work of literature is not always an easy pleasure; it often places great demands upon the reader... but I am one of those who believes that there is a unique pleasure to be won through such effort... such wrestling with a great work of art.:nod:

[Neovia]

Thank you Jtolj, I haven't laught this much for a long time :'D. I still can't decide are you stupid or just having fun by provoketing people. Zippy and overmydeadbody have some good points there.

[MikeK]

It occured to me Jtolj, after my last post on this thread, that the reason for your opinion of poetry might be that you have in mind only free-verse poetry; in which case I agree with you, I don't much care for free-verse myelf. If that's the case, then you're right; 90% of it is not good and it is easy to write. Those two things actually may go hand-in-hand. As Robert Frost famously put it; writing free-verse is like playing tennis with the net down. A perfect metaphor (as Frost could usually find), since playing tennis with the net down is easy for the players and not very enjoyable for the spectators. Just as you put it in your original post: easy to write and not very good.

If I'm right, and your dislike of poetry is because you have in mind free-verse, I'd recommend that you try some of the great poetry from before this past century. Try some of the English Romantics or Shakespeare. Or you can try some great poets from the age of free-verse who still wrote in meter and rhythm: Frost or Yeats perhaps. I'd bet that if you read some of the great poetry written in meter and rhythm then the art of poetry might rise a bit in your estimation.

If all of this was wrong, however, and your objection was not only of free-verse but of all poetry in general, then I still do disagree. I'd say that it's the hardest to write well, and the best when done so.

[Dreamur]

I think that you have your poetic poles inverted, peotry is infact a higher form of art created with inspiration, perspiration, experience, dreams, loves, hates, and just a smidgeon of intellectual curiousity thrown in for levity.

Poetry, whether you like it or hate it is part and parcel of our society. believe it or not you are exposed to many forms of poetry everyday! It is the advertising jingles on your television, in the lyrics of your favorite music on the radio, MP3, CD Player, etc., you say that you do not like poetry, that is a shame, poetry allows us to enter other peoples dreams, as envisioned by their words, it helps us to connect and commiserate with others who are grieving for loved one's lost to us, and to those who we want to love, but have not the fortitude to express it, and so it is expressed thru metaphor, simile and other methods to get our feelings across. It also allows us to veiw the world through other points of view, that might not or did not occur to us to try and consider.

In further reading of your post, you like music and other types of the same genre, great!, Maybe freeform poetry is not your cup of tea, try going to a poetry slam event, and see what others have done with their words, it just might move you to verse, yourself.

Poetry comes in many, many ways, shapes and forms, expose yourself to other genres of poetry and poetic formations and cut yourself free from the peonage of pusilanimously bad prose and run for the green green hills and maybe hide in a miniscule cave of mediocrity...

[tooralaan]

I think you're right, and that the majority of poetry is rubbish, but I'm inclined to think that the majority of poetry is written by people who think of themselves as a bit poetic. Most of these are angsty teenagers I think, and the majority of people grow out of writing poetry once they realise they're no good at it.

For those who actually have the talent with poetry, I'm inclined to think that even the majority of their poetry isn't that brilliant. You don't write a masterpiece every time you sit down. And statistically, half of everything is below average...

But as to the quality of poetry itself (real poetry), that's like the difference between charcoal and diamond. They're both made of exactly the same stuff, but the carbon atoms in diamond are held together by fewer, far more efficient atomic bonds. The result is not only beautiful, but it's the most resilient natural stuff on the planet. Good poetry is the same: it's words, like prose, but with no wasted energy, so it's so much more.

[brendabnicer2]

"It is the easiest to make"

If it's so easy to write good poetry, why is there so little of it?

"the least enjoyable,"
Enjoyment of poetry is often lost on those who lack the experience in life to share the emotion, or whose language skills are so dull as to not appreciate the linguistic artistry before them, or they lack the quickness of wit to appreciate a fugue of ideas woven with the warp of word play and woof of rythm and phonemes. I suspect Jtolj's garage is empty of one or more of the above.

"and the least meaningful."
Hogs don't distinguish between junk food or fine dining. It's all slop to them.


" I despise bad poetry and I'd say 7/10 of poetry is bad and 2/10 is mediocre."
I despise ignorance, illiteracy, unsupported demagoguery, and vacuous statistics.

"The problem with poetry is that all it is just like words."
Ignorance speaks for itself.

"It's just not a fun experience. Many times it is just an excersise in writing."
Your writing appears to need more "excersise" (sic). (Look it up).

"The main problem is poem's dont' go anywhere."
Nor does your ignorant use of apostrophes. In other words, when pontificating on the privations or perfections of poetry, whose points are predicated on paths paved with participles, prepositions, and punctuation; perhaps perspicacity with regard to one's own apostrophes would prevent public perturbations.


"They are too short to make do much and their structure disallows them from saying much and there's so much that you to sift through all the crap. Poems can work but they're hardly anything, unless in a song."

Then, let me close my exhortation by borrowing from the musical Bard, the late John Lennon, with a musical adaptation of "Hey Jude."

"Hey Jtolj, don't make it bad.
Take a sad poem and make it better.
Remember to let it into your heart,
Then you can start to make it better.

Hey Jtolj, don't be afraid.
You were made to go out and write her.
The minute you let her under your skin,
Then you begin to make it better.

And anytime you feel the pain, hey Jtolj, retrain,
to carry your brain upon your shoulders.
For well you know that it's a verse that makes it terse
By making his world a little bolder.

Hey Jtolj, don't let me down.
Read a sad poem, like a love letter.
Remember to let her into your heart,
Then you can start to make it better.

[Sindhu]

Incredible! Utterly, absolutely, incredible! The easiest to make? that sounds like Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice remarking "every Savage can dance." The least meaningful? So all those readers,academicians and professional critics who found reams of meaning in poetry are dismissed ith ne wave of your wand?as for the percentages- try the same statistical method with prose or drama and I rather think you might have to retract your statements. Ofcourse if you go to literature for "a fun experience"I can quite see the problem- butwhy just poetry? I hardly think you would call Oedipus Rex or the Brothers Karamazov a "fun experience". You know, P. G wodehouse (who, by the way I think is a wonderful writer) spent hisentire career providing "fun experiences. Then there are always the jokebooks,Mad magazine and lots of works of that kind which will provide "Fun experiences".So why not just leave poetry alone? Although to mention just one example if you don'tfind reading Byon's A Vision of Judgement a 'fun experience' you really need to do something about this. Poems don'tgo anywhere? where on earth or out of itdo you want them to go for eaven's sake? anyway if that is the problem,then there isenoughand more of Narrative poetry which certainly goes somewhere.-Scott's Lochinvar for an off the top of my head example. Just an exercise in writing- well, if you aretold to come up with so many lines within a given time frame in a classroom, maybe. But ask anyone who is generally acknowledgedas a good poet and I rather suspect they will have a somewhat different opinion. And you firsthave a problem with poems being too short and then it seems the problem is that they are too long. Assuming you are aware ofgenres, an epic poem has to be long and the sensible reader knows what to expect. and I really would like to know how much more meaning you want in two lines than is found in Pound's In a station at the Metro. As for song, by all means sing whatever poetry youread if it will help you aappreciate it better, but unless you are a budding pera tenor, perhaps a careful choice of venue would beadvisable.
I have beenaround his forum on and off or nearly 4 yearsand this s the veryfirst time I have written something inthe tone above. In fact, I'll even apologize for the tone- but certainly not for the content. I still haven't got over the shock of seeing that such a completely invalid statement can be found here of all places! .:rolleyes:. And if you are interested in discussing this sensibly and rationally, I will be around. Onthe other hand I find it really impossible to beleive that you could possibly be serious, maybe it was a well intentioned post eitherto stir things up and elicit brilliant replies like the ones Isaw, or tojust generally give everyone a good laugh? if that was the case, congratulations, you have certainly succeeded!
Sindhu


I think it is. It is the easiest to make, the least enjoyable, and the least meaningful. I despise bad poetry and I'd say 7/10 of poetry is bad and 2/10 is mediocre. The problem with poetry is that all it is just like words. It's just not a fun experience. Many times it is just an excersise in writing. The main problem is poem's dont' go anywhere. They are too short to make do much and their structure disallows them from saying much and there's so much that you to sift through all the crap. Poems can work but they're hardly anything, unless in a song.

Music, is a different example. My most favorite poetry is usually either musical or visual or storytelling "poetry" found in other works.

[grace86]

I disagree with you.

I was always told that writers have a purpose for every single word they put into their work. In a poem, how much more full of meaning is every single word?

Poetry is one of the hardest forms of writing. It takes a focused mind to both read and understand it as poetry is meant to convey emotions by the very use of one word or three.

Poetry is not useless and horrible. Think of the Chinese, their political leaders had to be fantastic poets to get their places in government - as even the most common chinese person put his everyday thoughts into poetry.

I have a hard time with a lot of poetry, and some of it is garbage. But try reading more poetry...you will find it isn't so bad.

Poetry, easiest to write, lowest and meaningless? Try reading Dante. I think you will change your mind.

[PeterL]

" I despise bad poetry and I'd say 7/10 of poetry is bad and 2/10 is mediocre."
I despise ignorance, illiteracy, unsupported demagoguery, and vacuous statistics.


87% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[cuppajoe_9]

It occurs to me that anybody who doesn't think that poetry is enjoyable has never read the work of John Wilmot, Second Earl of Rochester (warning: not suitable for children, the easily offended, or fans of King Charles II of England).

[sybilline]

Is poetry a lowly form of writing ?
It is a question which cannot be answered in a nutshell. I should have agree with you if you have said that bad poetry is a lowly form of writing. But essential poetry is not a simple translation of prose thoughts into poetic language through prosody and stylistic devices. It must convey an undercurrent of feelings which reconcile the heart with the head. You recognize true poetry thanks to the pleasure you have to return to it and if you enjoy to read it again and again. However we cannot be touched by every poem, even if they are valuable. I suggest you to have a look on chapter 1 of Biographia Literaria by Coleridge, who is a great defender of poetry.

[Shannanigan]

I think it is. It is the easiest to make, the least enjoyable, and the least meaningful. I despise bad poetry and I'd say 7/10 of poetry is bad and 2/10 is mediocre. The problem with poetry is that all it is just like words. It's just not a fun experience. Many times it is just an excersise in writing. The main problem is poem's dont' go anywhere. They are too short to make do much and their structure disallows them from saying much and there's so much that you to sift through all the crap. Poems can work but they're hardly anything, unless in a song.

I very rarely visit the poetry forum in here because honestly, I have been experiencing a poetic dry spell in which I have realized that I don't like most of the poetry I have written myself and I don't like most of the poetry I have read. But, like everyone says here, that is to be expected since there is a lot of bad poetry out there. When you take in a lot of bad poetry, it tends to leak out in your own...or that's what I think happened to me.

Nevertheless, I read your post and felt the need to respond. It is not poetry itself as a genre or artform that has dissappointed me; it is the way it has been abused as of late that has caused me to shy away. I still do not know what I like in poetry, all I know is that there are a couple poems I like and which others may not like...but it doesn't matter because they are pleasing to me to read. I don't think poetry should be dismissed as easy; the only poems I wrote myself that I still like today were the most difficult ones to write...one of which was actually for a creative writing class in which we had to write a poem with many rules forced onto us.

I know every response had mostly disagreed with you JT, except for the fact that most poetry is "bad", so I'm just another drop in the bucket. I just felt the need to tell you that I'm frustrated with poetry too, but that it in no way is a form of writing that should be entirely dismissed as you seem to want it to be.

[bluevictim]

With everyone else, I disagree with Jtolj's post. However, there is a sense, I suppose, in which poetry is a lowly form of writing. I think someone else mentioned it earlier, but poetry (or at least verse) was written as literature long before prose was written as literature. So, in some way, written prose literature can be said to be more "advanced" than written verse literature.

I think it would be interesting to explore the nature of this "advancement". The most obvious account that comes to my mind is that since literature was oral before writing, it tended (overwhelmingly) to be in verse to aid memorization and recitation. Thus, when people started writing literature down, the only literature around was in verse. Only later did people start using prose as a vehicle for literature. This suggests that writing is essential to sustain prose literature, which in turn suggests that writing in prose offers some additional freedom to the composer of literature to make the work "better".

Many of the previous posts have reasoned that poetry must be better than prose because it is more difficult to write good poetry than to write good prose. If this were the case, wouldn't one expect the best prose literature to be "better" than the best poetry? Wouldn't prose, then, be better than poetry in the sense that men are better than women at footraces?

I suspect that Jtolj was either just venting some frustration or trolling, but it's interesting that he mentioned song as an exception to the "poetry is lowly" rule. Song could well have been the earliest form of poetry, so following the hypothetical reasoning I presented above, one could say that song is a lowly form of poetry just as poetry is a lowly form of writing.

Just some food for thought, perhaps.

[Logos]

Just in case anyone missed the forum designation under their name or is expecting a response from them, Jtolj is no longer a member here.

[stlukesguild]

bluevictim;

You put forth an interesting theory... but I do not feel that it would hold much water. Prose is not a new advanced development (and even if it were, might we not [just as easily... and absurdly] suggest that rather than an advancement it signified a decline?) Some of the oldest literary works are essentially prose narratives even if they do not function in the same manner as a modern novel (and did not "Nouvelle" define a new narrative?) Personally, I am greatly enamored of poetry and appreciate many of the characteristics of this medium that are different from narrative prose. On the other hand... many of my favorite books are novels or prose in one form or another. Personally I find that idea of suggesting that poetry is better/worse than prose as absurd as suggesting that painting is better/worse than sculpture or symphonies are better/worse than sonatas or concerti. Certain art forms may have a more illustrious history... but in the end one can only compare the individual works and what the artists have done with them. I wouldn't be surprised if Michelangelo could do more of value with Play-Dough than another artist with the latest and greatest materials.

[bluevictim]

stlukesguild,

Of course you're absolutely right. I think it's interesting, though, to play advocatus diaboli to explore ideas.

Prose is not a new advanced development (and even if it were, might we not [just as easily... and absurdly] suggest that rather than an advancement it signified a decline?)Of course prose is not new, but verse seems to have been used for written artistic expression before prose (yes, this was long before the "novel" came about). Whether or not this is really true I guess I should leave to paleographers to debate. You're right that if I say prose literature is an advancement in the sense that it came about later in time, a corollary would be that prose literature is also a decline in the sense that it is less ancient.


Personally I find that idea of suggesting that poetry is better/worse than prose as absurd as suggesting that painting is better/worse than sculpture or symphonies are better/worse than sonatas or concerti. Certain art forms may have a more illustrious history... but in the end one can only compare the individual works and what the artists have done with them. I wouldn't be surprised if Michelangelo could do more of value with Play-Dough than another artist with the latest and greatest materials.

I agree that it's pretty meaningless to make judgements about whether poetry is better/worse than prose in general, but the conversation doesn't have to end there. There are some ways in which prose is better than verse and vice versa. There is probably a reason why prose came to dominate verse in written literature.

I suppose in the end all we are doing is comparing individual works, but I don't see anything absurd about grouping these individual comparisons and discussing general trends. After all, you seem to be willing to group your individual evaluations of the works of Michelangelo to come to a conclusion about how he might compare with the works of other artists in hypothetical situations.

So perhaps trying to judge whether all of poetry is better than all of prose in the most general sense of "better" is too broad to be fruitful. I don't think it's absurd to see if we can narrow the sense of "better" to see if it can generate interesting thoughts (and yes, if it is better at X, then it is worse at not-X). We're all friends, right?

For example, I think prose is better for mass appeal. I think prose tends to be more accessible, and more easily translated between languages. Not much is lost when Plato is read in translation, compared to Aeschylus. I hope that isn't too absurd.

[Petrarch's Love]

With everyone else, I disagree with Jtolj's post. However, there is a sense, I suppose, in which poetry is a lowly form of writing. I think someone else mentioned it earlier, but poetry (or at least verse) was written as literature long before prose was written as literature. So, in some way, written prose literature can be said to be more "advanced" than written verse literature.

I think it would be interesting to explore the nature of this "advancement". The most obvious account that comes to my mind is that since literature was oral before writing, it tended (overwhelmingly) to be in verse to aid memorization and recitation. Thus, when people started writing literature down, the only literature around was in verse. Only later did people start using prose as a vehicle for literature. This suggests that writing is essential to sustain prose literature, which in turn suggests that writing in prose offers some additional freedom to the composer of literature to make the work "better".

Bluevictim--I find it intersting that you would bring this up, since it was a not uncommon attitude in the late Middle Ages to consider prose superior to poetry. This certainly did not apply to all poetry, and was a much more subtle and complex criticism than that jtolj presented on this thread, but the status of poetry in the middle ages was certainly lesser in comparison to the high level of respect it attained in the Renaisance (meaning about the 16th century in England) with the revival of the Virgilian model of authorship and the production of defenses for poetry like that of Phillip Sidney. Part of the reason for poetry's lesser status was specifically connected with "rime" or vernacular poetry, which really has to do with a whole argument for Latin (the language of the church) as superior to vernacular writing. Poetry in general was a form that could be associated with the vernacular and/or oral traditions and thus with common men rather than exclusively the educated, the clergy or the elite. There was also criticism of the form on moral grounds due to the sense that poetry was more common than prose since it might easily be more aimed at sounding pleasing to the ears of the listener than in conveying concise or pure messages about God and religion in the way prose was perceived to.

This sense of poetry in the middle ages, however, certainly doesn't mean that authors such as Dante and Chaucer were ever without considerable influence. It also is a highly historically specific argument which has little to do with the current status of poetry. A lot has happened in terms of poetic production, our appreciation of poetry, and shifts in our own culture since then. Incidently, while I understand the temptation to see a sort of evolutionary progression from poetry to the novel (which does, of course, vaguely chart the most popular forms in western literature over the past several hundered years), it may be more productive and ultimately more interesting to frame your questions in terms of why certain specific periods favored specific forms of literature (lyric poetry, epic poetry, essays or sermons, novels etc.) than to try to find some overarching development in literature with the novel (as the most modern form) as its end.

As for the initial post to this thread, I hardly see the point in responding.

[bluevictim]

Petrarch's Love,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I see that my first post was misleading, since both stlukesguild and Petrarch's Love seem to have understood it differently than I intended. I wasn't really asserting or suggesting some kind of evolution from poetry to the modern novel, I was just saying that prose written literature seemed to start later than verse written literature. Nor was I suggesting that prose is superior to poetry in general. I was merely saying that there might be some ways in which prose tends to be better (and some ways in which it is worse). For example, it seems that prose literature is better at having a later start (which is admittedly a silly thing to be "better" at). It also seems more amenable to translation.

I'm not exactly sure how the modern novel entered the conversation, since I think there is a lot of prose besides the modern novel. I guess there is probably some miscommunication, so hopefully it gets cleared up. I agree that it would be a strange thing to do to try to look for some kind of overarching development in literature with the novel as its end.

I find it very interesting that there was a feeling in the middle ages that prose was superior to poetry, because it seems like the poetry of that age turned out to be much more enduring than the prose. I don't have the background to talk about very many periods and the specific forms of literature favored in them (although I'd love to hear your thoughts). I did try to speculate about why verse might have been favored at the dawn of writing (that bit about verse being dominant for oral literature).

This might turn out to be an interesting discussion, after all. Thanks stlukesguild and Petrarch's Love, for responding to my post.

[stlukesguild]

Petrarch's Love;

You raise some interesting points. I do indeed recall that poetry was indeed seen as second-rate in so far as it was composed in the "vulgar" tongue and centered upon such popular themes of love as are not far removed from most of today's popular music. I should have remembered that your name-sake is to have placed far greater value on various prose writings (in Latin) than in the Canzoniere. What is even more interesting, however, and perhaps worthy of greater investigation, is the manner in which literary artists were able to construct some of the most important works of literature using forms that were essentially seen as "vulgar"... "common"... "low art". This is true not merely of the troubador poets, Cavalcanti, Dante, Petrarch, Sidney, etc... but it is equally true of Marlowe, Shakespeare and the other great playwrites... and of course... it is equally true of the first "novelists": Richardson, DeFoe, Fielding, Smollett, Cervantes, etc... The relationship between popular and "high art" is always somewhat ambiguous... In our own time I have little doubt that certain popular art forms such as photography, film, and jazz have resulted in many of the greatest art works of the era. On the other hand... I don't know that any TV scriptwriter has yet approached the genius of Shakespeare.

Returning to bluevictim's comments I certainly agree that both poetry and prose have their unique strengths and weaknesses... and these may make them more or less suitable for a given task... or a given period or culture. Written debates, arguments, essays would probably not be strengthened by a poetic structure. I don't plan on writing my comments in sonnet form any time soon... and it might be pointed out that even Sidney's famous "An Apologie for Poetrie(In Defense of Poesie)" and Shelley's "In Defence of Poetry" were both written (ironically?) in prose. I also doubt that poetry would be the best choice for most technical writing. I have enough trouble deciphering those instruction manuals for assembling hooking up my latest computer or putting my TV stand together. The pseudo-English garbled together from the original Spanish or Korean is bad enough without wanting it broken into stanzas or utilizing rhyme. I must also concur that prose has the advantage of translating far better than poetry. In oredr to translate poetry, one must not lose the "music" and what is needed is something akin to musical transcription requiring someone with the ability for remaking the music from one instrument (language) into that of another.

What I might suggest, however, is that many who speak of a dislike of poetry seem to have an expectation that poetry act merely as prose in rhyme. They often complain of the lack of certain form of linear narrative and are put off by the lack of a clear and immediately understood "meaning". Perhaps, as a visual artist... and someone deeply enamoured of classical music... I can appreciate the music and form of poetry much more than the average reader. I might note than one of the contemporary writers I find to be the most facinating is Anne Carson, who blurs the distinctions between prose meditations, literary essays, original poetry, and translation.

[bluevictim]

Part of the reason for poetry's lesser status was specifically connected with "rime" or vernacular poetryDoes this have something to do with why John Milton called rhymed verse an invention of a barbarous age in the beginning of Paradise Lost? I always thought this was a strange view.


Written debates, arguments, essays would probably not be strengthened by a poetic structure. ... I also doubt that poetry would be the best choice for most technical writing.Perhaps you are already aware of this, but the earliest Greek philosophy and mathematics was written in verse. Verse was also used in early Greek politics. One reason I find the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of prose compared with poetry interesting is that it's not really clear to me what they are.


What I might suggest, however, is that many who speak of a dislike of poetry seem to have an expectation that poetry act merely as prose in rhyme. They often complain of the lack of certain form of linear narrative and are put off by the lack of a clear and immediately understood "meaning".This is an interesting observation. I do find that modern readers (and teachers, too) heavily emphasize "meaning", and I concur that the appreciation of form is crucial for appreciating a lot of the finest poetry. What I've observed, though, is that people do appreciate form, if they aren't worried about having to write essays and make intelligent responses about the poetry they are reading. For example, even the OP was willing to accept song as good poetry. I think that is because he is enjoying the form without feeling the pressure to be able to discourse on the meaning.

[stlukesguild]

This is an interesting observation. I do find that modern readers (and teachers, too) heavily emphasize "meaning", and I concur that the appreciation of form is crucial for appreciating a lot of the finest poetry. What I've observed, though, is that people do appreciate form, if they aren't worried about having to write essays and make intelligent responses about the poetry they are reading. For example, even the OP was willing to accept song as good poetry. I think that is because he is enjoying the form without feeling the pressure to be able to discourse on the meaning.

Yes, many teachers... especially the high-school English teachers stress the "meaning" over everything else, and I suppose many students must wonder what the point is... why write in such a coded manner?... why not simply say what they want to convey in prose? Such an approach to reading, to my mind, simply presents the "menu" as if it were the meal. I am not suggesting that poetry is "meaningless", but I will suggest that poetry (and some prose) may not have an immediately clear single "meaning" yet still not be "meaningless". I would never think to suggest that Mozart's piano concerto no. 20 is "meaningless" in spite of the fact that I could not assign a single meaning to it. Poetry (and undoubtedly many forms of prose... although perhaps to a lesser extent) seemingly weaves form and content together in such a manner that they are not easily separated... they are essentially one. Perhaps, as I know certain older critics have suggested, a poem does not "mean" but rather "is". In this manner it is closer to art and music.

[Papillion]

Jtolj,

Consider this.

Off Topic:
Architectural Rule: Form Follows Function.

I am from Australia, a rough and ready land where our short history has embraced a myriad of cultures. Our buildings range from the Bark lean-to to the Sydney Opera House and in between there are trials and errors of varying proportions but even the most disgusting architectural example has had purpose.

Our most praised Poet, Banjo Paterson, told stories of the events of his time, easy to remember and passed on by the Bush Telegraph. His work is still recited today around campfires and taught in schools.

I am a woeful poet but as with Architecture I can find reason and regard for the artists toil.

Please enjoy a little Banjo recitation and I would be happy to explain any colloquialisms you are unfamiliar with.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/%7Eozlit/snowy02.html#first

Balthasar Gracian's "The Art of Worldly Wisdom"
Aphorism #101 One half of the World laughs at the other, and Fools are they all.

[bluevictim]

Yes, many teachers... especially the high-school English teachers stress the "meaning" over everything else, and I suppose many students must wonder what the point is... why write in such a coded manner?... why not simply say what they want to convey in prose? Such an approach to reading, to my mind, simply presents the "menu" as if it were the meal. ...I think we have much in common in our views of poetry.

It occured to me that it might help (or at least it might be fun) to discuss how one might define "poetry" (although I don't hope to come to any consensus). I have been using "poetry" interchangeably with "verse". This reflects my own understanding of the essence of poetry, but it may not be satisfactory to others. For example, I came across the following poem in another thread:



1(a

1e
af
fa

11

s)
one
1

iness


I would hardly call this verse (nor would I call it prose), and I really don't have works of this kind in mind when I think of and discuss poetry. There are also some people who consider some of the dialogues of Plato to be poetry, but that's not what I have in mind, either.

When I speak of verse, what I really mean (roughly) is prose with some additional rules (the rules are not necessarily easy to enumerate). In other words, verse is a special kind of prose, and when I use "prose", I really mean "prose proper", i.e., prose that is not verse.

To include works like the one I quoted above in the discussion, prose becomes the category with more rules. That is, prose is writing like speech, and poetry is writing that is not prose.

[macg1]

Read some Leonard Cohen. He is an excellent poet. I know that he sets
many of his poems to music, but he does a fine job at it. There are some
other great musical poets, who's work I admire.

[stlukesguild]

"...prose is writing like speech, and poetry is writing that is not prose..."

If prose is writing that is akin to speech, then perhaps poetry is writing that is akin to song... music?

I must admit that your quoted poem was certainly not what I had in mind either when I spoke of poetry as a form of writing in which the content and the form (a musical... architectural form?) were inseperable. As I assume you also intended, I never mean to suggest that the "meaning" is irrelevant or that a poem need be "meaningless" or even hermetic in its "meaning". There are some quite "abstract" poems that I do quite admire. I like a good deal of Christian Morgenstern's work and his Fish's Night Song always makes me smile:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/ntsngofthefishes.jpg

And I love several other of Morgenstern's "nonsense" poems, such as Das große Lalula, which goes even further than Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky ("TWAS brillig, and the slithy toves...) as a play on sound:

Krokoklafzi? Semememi!
Seiokrontro - prafriplo:
Bifzi, bafzi; hulalemi:
quasti basti bo . . .
Lalu, lalu lalu lalu la!

Hontraruru miromente
zasku zes rü rü?
Entepente, leiolente
klekwapufzi lü?
Lalu lalu lalu lalu la!

Simarar kos malzipempu
silzuzankunkrei (;)!
Marjomar dos: Quempu Lempu
Siri Suri Sei []!
Lalu lalu lalu lalu la!

Of course... Finnegan's Wake makes it clear that prose can be just as esoteric... hermetic... and far removed from common speech than anything in poetry. Perhap's we can only define poetry in the same manner as the ol' judge used to define pornography by saying I'm not sure I can clearly define it, "but I know it when I see it.";)

[bluevictim]

... then perhaps poetry is writing that is akin to song... music?Yes, this is indeed the direction I'm going in when I use the term "verse".



I must admit that your quoted poem was certainly not what I had in mind either when I spoke of poetry as a form of writing in which the content and the form (a musical... architectural form?) were inseperable. As I assume you also intended, I never mean to suggest that the "meaning" is irrelevant or that a poem need be "meaningless" or even hermetic in its "meaning".Yes, my digression about definitions of poetry was not in response to your comments (but my remark about having a similar view of poetry was).



Perhap's we can only define poetry in the same manner as the ol' judge used to define pornography by saying I'm not sure I can clearly define it, "but I know it when I see it.";)It is certainly difficult to define all of poetry precisely. My intention was only to point out that I really only have some poetry in mind when I make remarks like "poetry aids memorization and recitation" or "prose offers additional freedoms over poetry"; it is the poetry that I feel best reflects the essence of poetry, but others may not feel the same way. In my opinion, the class of all works that anyone might call poetry is too broad to make many meaningful statements about. To me, poems like the loneliness poem (by E.E. Cummings) I quoted and Fish's Night Song which stlukesguild posted are not really more similar to the poetry I call "verse" than other works of art like M.C. Escher's "Drawing Hands" or a performance by Stomp. Thus, it might be relevant to make some comments about how poetry might be defined. Perhaps the definition of poetry is interesting enough of a topic for a separate thread.

[overmydeadbody]

'Jtolj is no longer a member here.'

....well he has just been shouted down by the whole online community.

'Of course... Finnegan's Wake makes it clear that prose can be just as esoteric... hermetic... and far removed from common speech than anything in poetry.'

Finnegan's Wake is poetry. One definition of opoetry for you is 'anything written by an irishman'


Simarar kos malzipempu
silzuzankunkrei (!
Marjomar dos: Quempu Lempu
Siri Suri Sei []!
Lalu lalu lalu lalu la!

Ive got that stuck in my head!

[cuppajoe_9]

Finnegan's Wake is poetry. One definition of opoetry for you is 'anything written by an irishman'

Milk
Eggs
Soda Bread
Potatoes
Sausages
Bacon
Black Pudding
White Pudding
Mushrooms

[ennison]

Good poetry is one of life's principal enjoyments and bad poetry is likewise enjoyable for the opportunity it gives to laugh.

[dramasnot6]

With shock i stared at this forum thread
Continous gasps and scratching of my head
A knock to poetry? Who could have dared?
A good poem is a contribution to reality! I declared.
Where would we be without Frost, Poe, Plath, and e.e.???
What would be the point in gathering for tea?
I'm sorry, I said, i will have this no more
Off to post haikus and poems galore!

[chasestalling]

Jtolj,

your username, how does one pronounce it? i told you?

your're quite right about poetry. it's the lowliest, the most democratic art form there is, anyone may do it and therein lies the rub. may i say but can is another matter.

if it resembles a poem is it a poem? don't be so kind. reality hurts but better that than deluding others into thinking that he or she is the next galway kinnell only to have he or she come crashing down to earth at the most inopportune moment.

[Redzeppelin]

The best literary expressions are those where the writer put into words a thought, feeling or idea that the rest of us have always thought, felt or known but could never find the words for. The best novels, short stories, plays and poetry do this.

But: poetry does so with fewer words. Like the chess master who wins the game in 5 moves, the poet does in 50 words what sometimes takes a novelist 5000. That kind of compression requires an intimacy with language that often cannot be taught or measured.

Everybody can write bad poetry; a large number can write passably good poetry - but great poetry? Far more difficult than it appears. In fact, the "ease" with which poetry seems to be able to be created is part of the art - it merely "looks" easy.

[keizi]

So who has been spreading these rumours?
There's nothing lowly about having a simple means to express one's feelings in a way your heart can understand and to put forth one's thoughts in a language your brain can translate