Is poetry the language of romance?

[cacian]

or is it the language of sense?

I think poetry is the language of sense and feelings both combined make for a perfect logic.

what do you think?

[PeterL]

How about neither? And what sort of poetry do you mean? Poetry has changed greatly over time, and what it is now is very different from what it was when Shakespeare wrote.

Your thought that "poetry is the language of sense and feelings both combined make for a perfect logic" is pre-Romantic or Neoclassical. Post-Romantic thought is that poetry is purely emotional. Rather than relegating poetry to being purely emotional, I regard poetry as simply a different way of writing that may be more memorable, and I believe that makes me Neoclassical in this regard..

[MorpheusSandman]

It can be both. For some reason most associate poetry with romance; perhaps because for so many years love was probably the dominating topic for lyric poetry, especially sequences (Shakespeare's sonnets, eg, but also the other major sonnet sequences of that era) and the "Romantic" era is still the most widely read/known era in English poetry (though, surprisingly, the romantics wrote very little about love; more about nature).

[cacian]

How about neither? And what sort of poetry do you mean? Poetry has changed greatly over time, and what it is now is very different from what it was when Shakespeare wrote.

I mean poetry in general. I don't value Shakespeare as being a poet.


Your thought that "poetry is the language of sense and feelings both combined make for a perfect logic" is pre-Romantic or Neoclassical. Post-Romantic thought is that poetry is purely emotional.


emotional? that would explain a lot. if I wanted to shed a tear then I will go shed it over a cup of words and call it poetry.


Rather than relegating poetry to being purely emotional, I regard poetry as simply a different way of writing that may be more memorable, and I believe that makes me Neoclassical in this regard..
sure but is it not neoclassical a conformism rather then a difference?
I feel poetry is a form of expression that liberates the sense and tolerate a feeling.
poetry is the truth no one wants to talk about.

[cacian]

It can be both. For some reason most associate poetry with romance; perhaps because for so many years love was probably the dominating topic for lyric poetry, especially sequences (Shakespeare's sonnets, eg, but also the other major sonnet sequences of that era) and the "Romantic" era is still the most widely read/known era in English poetry (though, surprisingly, the romantics wrote very little about love; more about nature).

I see. it was either love or nature.
I wonder aren't the two confused to be one?
I mean a lover of nature and a lover of a person to be the same and one kind no?

[MorpheusSandman]

I wonder aren't the two confused to be one?
I mean a lover of nature and a lover of a person then to be the same and one kind no?I wouldn't say they're "confused to be one," but they can certainly serve as metaphors for each other, like Wordsworth's eroticized Nutting. (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174802)

[cacian]

and what a piece a one I declare I don't quite get.
the title:

nutting

is unclear I did look it up but it seems to describe headbutting or nuts.

and then the opening lines.


It seems a day
(I speak of one from many singled out)
One of those heavenly days that cannot die;
When, in the eagerness of boyish hope,
I left our cottage-threshold, sallying forth

A nutting-crook in hand; and turned my steps
Tow'rd some far-distant wood, a Figure quaint,
Tricked out in proud disguise of cast-off weeds
Which for that service had been husbanded,
By exhortation of my frugal Dame—
Motley accoutrement, of power to smile

are you able to explain a little bit these two passages?
I would be most grateful

I gather it is about a virgin this is as far I went. :)

[YesNo]

if I wanted to shed a tear and I will go shed it over a cup of words and call it poetry.


I like the way you put that.

[Poetaster]

Neither, and both; poetry is a form of expression, and a form of expression expresses many different things.

[cacian]

Neither, and both; poetry is a form of expression, and a form of expression expresses many different things.

It can only express one thing the general consensus says so. :)
only kidding.
poetry is an express not a slow show. it needs to get the point and quick otherwise it will never get there.
speed is poetry doddering is not.

[cacian]

I like the way you put that.

thank you YesNo.
what are your views on the language of poetry?

[PeterL]

I mean poetry in general. I don't value Shakespeare as being a poet.

Each to one's own.


emotional? that would explain a lot. if I wanted to shed a tear then I will go shed it over a cup of words and call it poetry.[/QUOTE]

Call it poetry, if you like, but that puts you firmly in the Post-Romantic camp.

[/QUOTE]sure but is it not neoclassical a conformism rather then a difference?
I feel poetry is a form of expression that liberates the sense and tolerate a feeling.
poetry is the truth no one wants to talk about.[/QUOTE]

Neo-classical when applied to poetry is very broad. But everything conforms with something.

[cacian]

Each to one's own.


emotional? that would explain a lot. if I wanted to shed a tear then I will go shed it over a cup of words and call it poetry.

Call it poetry, if you like, but that puts you firmly in the Post-Romantic camp.

I am not keen on the word NEO.


sure but is it not neoclassical a conformism rather then a difference?
I feel poetry is a form of expression that liberates the sense and tolerate a feeling.
poetry is the truth no one wants to talk about.

Neo-classical when applied to poetry is very broad. But everything conforms with something
not necessarily something does not need to conform to be.
in fact it is easier to uncoform then to.
'free from' best describes the poetry I aspire to.

[PeterL]

I am not keen on the word NEO.

What do you have against "neo"? It is simply a prefix meaning "new".


not necessarily something does not need to conform to be.
in fact it is easier to uncoform then to.
'free from' best describes the poetry I aspire to.

What does conform to something> I can't imagine such a thing.

[Whosis]

I have been accused of being "romantic" in my prose by inserting alliteration and other poetic techniques. Poetry can also command a great deal of sense as one can speak bluntly about topics.

[cacian]

What do you have against "neo"? It is simply a prefix meaning "new".

it is associated with nazi.


What does conform to something> I can't imagine such a thing.
why not?

[MorpheusSandman]

I gather it is about a virgin this is as far I went. :)I don't have time right now to fully explicate those passages, but you're pretty much right about this assessment. The general point is that the speaker is comparing man's thoughtless ravishment of nature for his own pleasure to a kind of virginal rape. After picking the flowers, the speaker looks back and recognizes that the place has lost something of its beauty because of what he selfishly took from it.

[PeterL]

it is associated with nazi.


That's news. Are you referring to the word "neo-Nazi"? If so, then that is just an example of "neo" being used to mean "new". One can also use it in "neo-Classical", neo-Liberal", etc.

[PeterL]

not necessarily something does not need to conform to be.
in fact it is easier to unconform then to.
'free from' best describes the poetry I aspire to.

I don't understand what you meant by this. Even if something is "free from" something, it is conforming with being "free from". "Conform" means "in accordance with".

conform
verb (used without object)
1. to act in accordance or harmony; comply (usually followed by to ): to conform to rules.
2. to act in accord with the prevailing standards, attitudes, practices, etc., of society or a group: One has to conform in order to succeed in this company.
3. to be or become similar in form, nature, or character.
4. to be in harmony or accord.
5. to comply with the usages of an established church, especially the Church of England.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conform?s=t

[tonywalt]

I don't understand what you meant by this. Even if something is "free from" something, it is conforming with being "free from". "Conform" means "in accordance with".

conform
verb (used without object)
1. to act in accordance or harmony; comply (usually followed by to ): to conform to rules.
2. to act in accord with the prevailing standards, attitudes, practices, etc., of society or a group: One has to conform in order to succeed in this company.
3. to be or become similar in form, nature, or character.
4. to be in harmony or accord.
5. to comply with the usages of an established church, especially the Church of England.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conform?s=t

I hereby conform to non-conformity. (These threads are becoming bubble gum for the mind).

[PeterL]

I hereby conform to non-conformity. (These threads are becoming bubble gum for the mind).

Sticky or what?

[cacian]

Sticky or what?

bubble gum? it is chewy. :D

[cacian]

I don't understand what you meant by this. Even if something is "free from" something, it is conforming with being "free from". "Conform" means "in accordance with".

conform
verb (used without object)
1. to act in accordance or harmony; comply (usually followed by to ): to conform to rules.
2. to act in accord with the prevailing standards, attitudes, practices, etc., of society or a group: One has to conform in order to succeed in this company.
3. to be or become similar in form, nature, or character.
4. to be in harmony or accord.
5. to comply with the usages of an established church, especially the Church of England.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conform?s=t

I think tot conform to something is to belong to a group a rule or a tag or a label. to unconfrom is to ignore all stresses of conformism and go free willed.
by this I mean the outcome is completely unpredictable. unpredictability means unconformism.

[PeterL]

I think tot conform to something is to belong to a group a rule or a tag or a label. to unconfrom is to ignore all stresses of conformism and go free willed.
by this I mean the outcome is completely unpredictable. unpredictability means unconformism.

That is conforming to a particular group or whatever, being in accord with that group or standard.

Conforming in general is as the definition from dictionary.com says.

[Ecurb]

Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy chime in on the subject. Mrs. Bennet is bragging about Jane to kick the conversation off:


When she was only fifteen, there was a gentleman at my brother Gardiner's in town so much in love with her that my sister-in-law was sure he would make her an offer before we came away. But, however, he did not. Perhaps he thought her too young. However, he wrote some verses on her, and very pretty they were."

"And so ended his affection," said Elizabeth impatiently. "There has been many a one, I fancy, overcome in the same way. I wonder who first discovered the efficacy of poetry in driving away love!"

"I have been used to consider poetry as the food of love," said Darcy.

"Of a fine, stout, healthy love it may. Everything nourishes what is strong already. But if it be only a slight, thin sort of inclination, I am convinced that one good sonnet will starve it entirely away."

Darcy only smiled; and the general pause which ensued made Elizabeth tremble lest her mother should be exposing herself again.

[cacian]

Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy chime in on the subject. Mrs. Bennet is bragging about Jane to kick the conversation off:

poetry the food of love?
I thought poetry was because there was no love/understanding/feelings of rejoice.
poetry is born out of the need to extrapulate an idea a vision because there is no understanding anywhere else.
hardly a sonnet is to starve love away but instead turns into a mechanised script.

music is the food o flove I heard of Shakespeare or is one saying music equals poetry?

[JBI]

Poetry is more or less a game of intellectuals debating what it means to be creative. By the Renaissance poetry had already been regarded as a form of rhetoric that males "engaged" in as a way to prove their intelligence. The legacy of Petrarch was basically a game of who could Petrarch the best, culminating in I guess Shakespeare in English being the most rhetorically dense of Petrarch's children. After that, we see the shift to ironizing the sentiments of poetry, so that no longer declaring your love is enough - authors like Donne are playing a lot more with conceits and word play - like a sort of puzzle - to up the rhetoric of the craft. Pope, Dryden and the like are mere offshoots of this and its natural conclusion - the rhetorical function of their work begins to stress more the didactic and the ironic in favor of the creative and word-play that so dominated the late renaissance and early neo-classical period (about the time of Milton).

The Romantic shift basically changed the rhetoric of the game to deal with "emotions" and feelings, which were not a real question before, as much as rhetoric was. Such a shift was almost all-encompassing in the Western World, and moved to the Eastern world as the seminal, or essential aspect of what they regard as "Western" or English poetry, when really this Romantic idea of emotions is quite new in the grand scale.

Lionel Trilling believed such a change was a move in the Romantic period to focus on Sincerity, whereas in the modernist period he argued there was a move toward Authenticity. Such a change is somewhat convincing in the forms of poetic expression, but at the heart of it, I cannot help feeling it is all just a rhetorical game of "I'm smarter than you."

[desiresjab]

Poetry is only "a" language of romance, and not the dominant one. That language is personal letters. Poetry is always considering too many things simultaneously, striving for this or that, to be the language of romance. When poetry becomes the language of romance it is usually because the poetry has become bad and is now treading in the territory of the letter writer.

Poetry is the language of language.

[MorpheusSandman]

Poetry is the language of language.Best answer yet. I've often said that poetry is the ART of language (in form).

[JBI]

Best answer yet. I've often said that poetry is the ART of language (in form).

It's the art of being creative with language.

[cacian]

Poetry is only "a" language of romance, and not the dominant one. That language is personal letters. Poetry is always considering too many things simultaneously, striving for this or that, to be the language of romance. When poetry becomes the language of romance it is usually because the poetry has become bad and is now treading in the territory of the letter writer.

Poetry is the language of language.
the language of language? how many languages are there?

[desiresjab]

What poetry seems to be (besides the language of language) is the language of the rememberance of love, as illustrated in this piece:



Bread And Music.
Conrad Aiken



MUSIC I heard with you was more than music,
And bread I broke with you was more than bread.
Now that I am without you, all is desolate,
All that was once so beautiful is dead.

Your hands once touched this table and this silver,
And I have seen your fingers hold this glass.
These things do not remember you, beloved:
And yet your touch upon them will not pass.

For it was in my heart you moved among them,
And blessed them with your hands and with your eyes.
And in my heart they will remember always:
They knew you once, O beautiful and wise!


Example after example is available. But one poet who was good at capturing the immediacy of love while it was happening, instead of reflecting on it as a period from the past, is D. H. Lawrence.

Gloire de Dihon


When she rises in the morning
I linger to watch her;
She spreads the bath-cloth underneath the window
And the sunbeams catch her
Glistening white on the shoulders,
While down her sides the mellow
Golden shadow glows as
She stoops to the sponge, and her swung breasts
Sway like full-blown yellow
Gloire de Dijon roses.

She drips herself with water, and her shoulders
Glisten as silver, they crumple up
Like wet and falling roses, and I listen
For the sluicing of their rain-dishevelled petals.
In the window full of sunlight
Concentrates her golden shadow
Fold on fold, until it glows as
Mellow as the glory roses.

[MorpheusSandman]

It's the art of being creative with language.Plenty are artful with language in prose, so I usually insist on adding the "in form" part.

[Aere Perennius]

Plenty are artful with language in prose, so I usually insist on adding the "in form" part.

The distinction between poetry and prose is one that can never be entirely distinctive. Certainly, Taylor proved that poetry of high degree could exist without metre or form. Sidney used poesy to denominate that effect that is "poetical" in prose and verse. What is one to say of Dryden, Browne, or Milton's prose if not poetic. Sidney stated that one may be a poet without versifying and a versifier without poetry; perhaps this is what is meant: any true creative use of language as the potential to be considered poetry. Of course, I acknowledge that this is not a fact but simply a different way of looking at things.

[Ecurb]

R.L. Stevenson wrote a poem called "Romance". Here it is:


I will make you brooches and toys for your delight
Of bird-song at morning and star-shine at night.
I will make a palace fit for you and me
Of green days in forests and blue days at sea.


I will make my kitchen, and you shall keep your room,
Where white flows the river and bright blows the broom,
And you shall wash your linen and keep your body white
In rainfall at morning and dewfall at night.


And this shall be for music when no one else is near,
The fine song for singing, the rare song to hear!
That only I remember, that only you admire,
Of the broad road that stretches and the roadside fire.

[MorpheusSandman]

The distinction between poetry and prose is one that can never be entirely distinctive.This is the case with all umbrella labels that share common features, even though some are more common in one than the other. I'm fine with using "poetic" to describe features that are more common in poetry (musicality, imagery, figurative language, lyricality, etc.), but I still like keeping "poetry" and "prose" as descriptive labels where "poetry" is defined by lineation and prose is non-lineated literature. To me, "prose poetry" is just "poetic prose." I've had a few lengthy discussions about this on here, but it comes down to understanding how language works, that "poetry" and "prose" have no actual meanings beyond how people through history have thought of them and that there are better and worse ways to draw the boundary. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/o0/where_to_draw_the_boundary/)

[Aere Perennius]

This is the case with all umbrella labels that share common features, even though some are more common in one than the other. I'm fine with using "poetic" to describe features that are more common in poetry (musicality, imagery, figurative language, lyricality, etc.), but I still like keeping "poetry" and "prose" as descriptive labels where "poetry" is defined by lineation and prose is non-lineated literature. To me, "prose poetry" is just "poetic prose." I've had a few lengthy discussions about this on here, but it comes down to understanding how language works, that "poetry" and "prose" have no actual meanings beyond how people through history have thought of them and that there are better and worse ways to draw the boundary. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/o0/where_to_draw_the_boundary/)

Ha! I have never heard of that site before! Wonderful find. And you speak the truth on the historical definitions of poetry. Though it was in some ways due to their language, I don't recall Aristotle ever making a distinction between poetry and prose in the works he talked about. I do find some distinction useful, because, lord knows, we need to make sense of things in one way or another in order to criticize, appreciate, and define. In some ways the critical distinction between prose and poetry is the greatest success of literary criticism.

[MorpheusSandman]

Ha! I have never heard of that site before! Wonderful find.Lesswrong is as close as I come to having a Bible. It almost consistently either echoes the philosophies I already had, or I learned things I didn't know and came around to their philosophy. If you're interested in reading it systematically, start with the Sequences. (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences) The one I linked to above comes from the "A Human's Guide to Words" sequence, which is one of those I learned a tremendous amount from. Much of it as a laymen's (which I am when it comes to philosophy) guide to Quinean naturalism informed by AI research, Bayes' Theorem, and other math like game theory.


I do find some distinction useful, because, lord knows, we need to make sense of things in one way or another in order to criticize, appreciate, and define. In some ways the critical distinction between prose and poetry is the greatest success of literary criticism.The best way I know to think about these issues is to taboo the words (http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/), just stop thinking about them at all. Rather, actually look at different works and write down the features they have in common and those they don't. Once you've done this for many works, see if it makes sense to group them in a variety of ways. It's easier if you think about scientific definitions, which typically have a more rigorous, reductionist quality in how it defines/classifies things. If you say "A podarook is a reptile and a gurganut is a mammal," the only things those words tell you is that the former is cold-blooded, the latter isn't; the former has no hair, the latter does (or will, or had at some point); the former produces no milk from mammary glands, the latter does, etc. Those words give you no more information about those two animals (though you may think of some features you're more likely to see in each, given what you know of other reptiles and mammals).

To me, for there to be a distinction between poetry and prose, each term has to communicate some relevant information, some distinct difference, like the above mammal/reptile definitions. The only one I can come up with is the lineation VS non-lineation one. Now, granted, much early oral poetry wasn't even written down, but even then poetic tools like meter and end-rhyme seemed to be ways by which to divide the works into discrete sections, which could count as a kind of aural lineation. Like the mammals and reptiles, while there are some features more common in one than the other, they are not exclusive to either.

[osho]

the language of language? how many languages are there?
Poetry is the language of romance, but not all that alone, and poetry can be the language or a language of pains or miseries and poetry can be a language or voice of the voiceless. Do not frame poetry within your limited landscape and it covers a broad spectrum which you cannot comprehend even if you try throughout your life. Let us learn the limitless scope of poetry. Poetry has its origin long before people could write. It used to be folk songs.

[cacian]

Poetry is the language of romance, but not all that alone, and poetry can be the language or a language of pains or miseries and poetry can be a language or voice of the voiceless. Do not frame poetry within your limited landscape and it covers a broad spectrum which you cannot comprehend even if you try throughout your life. Let us learn the limitless scope of poetry. Poetry has its origin long before people could write. It used to be folk songs.

I believe we should aspire to all talk the language of poetry it may teach us something.

[Sir Guyon]

The nature of poetry, or rather the poetic sentiment which stirs the impulse for the creation of poetry, is I believe, ultimately emotional.This is true despite what subject matter a poet is inspired by. Some poets are more cerebral, some more sensual, all however share the common thread of emotional and I dare even say more fittingly, spiritual intoxication or inspiration, regardless of where in particular they find their muse.

[YesNo]

Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy chime in on the subject. Mrs. Bennet is bragging about Jane to kick the conversation off:

That was a good quote from Elizabeth: "Of a fine, stout, healthy love it may. Everything nourishes what is strong already. But if it be only a slight, thin sort of inclination, I am convinced that one good sonnet will starve it entirely away."

Nice irony.

This thread brings to mind the movie The Knight's Tale where Chaucer pens a love letter which is basically the combined thoughts of the knight and his comrades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otkULywALyI Later when the girl realizes the knight wasn't as poetic as she expected, she got mad.

[cacian]

That was a good quote from Elizabeth: "Of a fine, stout, healthy love it may. Everything nourishes what is strong already. But if it be only a slight, thin sort of inclination, I am convinced that one good sonnet will starve it entirely away."

Nice irony.

This thread brings to mind the movie The Knight's Tale where Chaucer pens a love letter which is basically the combined thoughts of the knight and his comrades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otkULywALyI Later when the girl realizes the knight wasn't as poetic as she expected, she got mad.
did she. I wonder why.

[YesNo]

did she. I wonder why.

I suspect she did because it added tension to the plot. Usually you have to have the couples fight before they finally get together in these romances. Just like Elizabeth Bennett was adding tension by claiming that one good sonnet could spoil a weak romance.

Here's another movie that I've enjoyed where a poem was used to win a lover's heart. It is one of the Harold and Kumar movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRVwn6AY4pI and the poem is about the square root of 3. I don't think there is anything else that could have convinced the girl, at her wedding to another man, to ditch the groom and go with Kumar. Of course, it is just a movie.

[cacian]

QUOTE=YesNo;1260288]I suspect she did because it added tension to the plot. Usually you have to have the couples fight before they finally get together in these romances. Just like Elizabeth Bennett was adding tension by claiming that one good sonnet could spoil a weak romance.
do you mean a good sonnet can bump up a weak romance ie make it better?



Here's another movie that I've enjoyed where a poem was used to win a lover's heart. It is one of the Harold and Kumar movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRVwn6AY4pI and the poem is about the square root of 3. I don't think there is anything else that could have convinced the girl, at her wedding to another man, to ditch the groom and go with Kumar. Of course, it is just a movie.
Harold and kumar. Is that the title?

I’m sure that I will always be
A lonely number like root three
The three is all that’s good and right

Shakeapeare speaking??
I am wondering how is root a three a lonely number? could five be also a lonely number by order of logic? are we talking odd numbers?

oh and this reminds of a clip Princess Diana gave before she died when she famously said referring to Prince Charles affair with Camiila:
three is a crowd.
It is rather a contrast with root three being a lonely number.

[YesNo]

do you mean a good sonnet can bump up a weak romance ie make it better?

It could do either one depending on how it is presented.



Harold and kumar. Is that the title?

The title is Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_%26_Kumar_Escape_from_Guantanamo_Bay



I’m sure that I will always be
A lonely number like root three
The three is all that’s good and right

Shakeapeare speaking??
I am wondering how is root a three a lonely number? could five be also a lonely number by order of logic? are we talking odd numbers?

oh and this reminds of a clip Princess Diana gave before she died when she famously said referring to Prince Charles affair with Camiila:
three is a crowd.
It is rather a contrast with root three being a lonely number.

I was puzzled by the use of 3 as well. However, I think it is because of the rhyme with "be". In that case, 5 wouldn't work but would be just as good otherwise.

There is the idea of three's a crowd as you mentioned and Kumar is trying to get rid of the groom. So here's a case where a poem is doing just what Elizabeth Bennett predicts. It destroys a weak romance (that between the bride and groom) and replaces it with a stronger one (that between Kumar and the bride).

According to the poem, root 3 is lonely because it is hiding under the root sign and can't be a decent integer, but when he and the bride multiply they can become the integer 3 together. OK, I probably explained that too much.

There is a famous poem by Joyce Kilmer called "Trees" that this poem seems to parody and actually improve: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poem/1947

[cacian]

It could do either one depending on how it is presented.



The title is Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_%26_Kumar_Escape_from_Guantanamo_Bay



I was puzzled by the use of 3 as well. However, I think it is because of the rhyme with "be". In that case, 5 wouldn't work but would be just as good otherwise.

There is the idea of three's a crowd as you mentioned and Kumar is trying to get rid of the groom. So here's a case where a poem is doing just what Elizabeth Bennett predicts. It destroys a weak romance (that between the bride and groom) and replaces it with a stronger one (that between Kumar and the bride).

According to the poem, root 3 is lonely because it is hiding under the root sign and can't be a decent integer, but when he and the bride multiply they can become the integer 3 together. OK, I probably explained that too much.

There is a famous poem by Joyce Kilmer called "Trees" that this poem seems to parody and actually improve: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poem/1947

a lovely poem YesNo I really enjoyed it.
about the square roots
the square root of three is 1.73
the square root of five is 2.23
I do not think they are far out.

[YesNo]

When he starts expanding root 3 there is the rhyme between "sun" and "one" that makes 3 preferable to 5.

"I know I'll never see the sun
As one point seven three two one."

To fit the iambic tetrameter form, there should be eight syllables in the line with four of them accented, The expansion of 3 to four decimal places works there as well.

He should have used root 2. Squaring that would have made the integer 2, but that might be too sentimental for Kumar. I think he wanted to reference Kilmer's poem which his more sophisticated girlfriend probably looked down upon much like she looked down upon Kumar at the moment. The sound, the naivete, the bad-boy, heartfelt expressiveness of Kumar's simple iambic tetrameter poem ironically undermined the intellectual house of cards his girlfriend had built with her more cultured and well-behaved groom.

I think poetry is meaning linked with the sounds of words. This puts it closer to music than visual art and goes against a modern assumption that there are "images" in poetry. There's meaning. There's sound. If there are any images, they are constructed by the reader imaginatively, but there don't have to be any images for it to keep a listener's attention. This isn't an immediate consequence of the above, but I don't see any problem with poetry being considered the language of romance.

[RobbyA]

Interesting thread! My general view is that poetry exists to express thoughts and feelings in the purest, most concise, most eloquent, and most beautiful form. It is as much about the way it sounds to the ear as the way it looks to the eye, and often a poem's meaning (or what you get from it) changes depending on whether you're reading or hearing.

On a more flippant note, I was reminded of this corker of an Elizabeth Bennett quote:

"I wonder who first discovered the efficacy of poetry in driving away love!"

[JBI]

When he starts expanding root 3 there is the rhyme between "sun" and "one" that makes 3 preferable to 5.

"I know I'll never see the sun
As one point seven three two one."

To fit the iambic tetrameter form, there should be eight syllables in the line with four of them accented, The expansion of 3 to four decimal places works there as well.

He should have used root 2. Squaring that would have made the integer 2, but that might be too sentimental for Kumar. I think he wanted to reference Kilmer's poem which his more sophisticated girlfriend probably looked down upon much like she looked down upon Kumar at the moment. The sound, the naivete, the bad-boy, heartfelt expressiveness of Kumar's simple iambic tetrameter poem ironically undermined the intellectual house of cards his girlfriend had built with her more cultured and well-behaved groom.

I think poetry is meaning linked with the sounds of words. This puts it closer to music than visual art and goes against a modern assumption that there are "images" in poetry. There's meaning. There's sound. If there are any images, they are constructed by the reader imaginatively, but there don't have to be any images for it to keep a listener's attention. This isn't an immediate consequence of the above, but I don't see any problem with poetry being considered the language of romance.

For those of us who saw the movie, we will note the poem was meant to be so lame as to shift the embarrassment from Kumar's girlfriend (who had just had her wedding to another person ruined, and looked embarrassed) toward Kumar himself, by means of this mediocre poem. The whole point is that the poem is lame.

And I will agree - anybody can write with more or less perfect metre; most people's poetry is garbage. Most published poetry falls close to the realm of garbage as well. Not even 1 percent of the published poetry will ever have any actual value toward the development of poetry as a discourse.

IF one is lucky, a poet may get (After their life) recognition for 1-2 poems. Great poets, like Coleridge, are banking on a half dozen poems or so in the A class, and perhaps another half dozen in the B class. We do not read the collected works of most poets, nor do we particularly memorize such works.

Take Yeats as an example, The Wild Swans at Coole as a collection has maybe 2 poems that are recognized as being of Yeats' best work. The rest are generally not selected for anthologies, and are hardly read. What happens to these poems then?


Now, back to the Square Root of 3, well, it fit a function in the film, but ultimately it is an ironic poem, like Spenser's attempt to write deliberately bad poetry as a poetic pun in the Faerie Queene - it serves as a plot device, not as good poetry.

The English tradition has never been focused on the use of poetry for seduction - but has been interested in the rhetorical function of such. So, we may ask, is there actually a "Coy Mistress", and we will answer, most likely not. Is there Passionate Shepherd's Love? Probably not - and I doubt there is a nymphs to reply. The idea of this concept of Romance is hardly fitting. One should consider 20th century replies to Dover Beach in comparison.

Yet still we get countless ignorant people talking about this so called romance nonsense in poetry. I not only question this, I welcome someone to find me such beautiful poems in English (As are well known) that deliver in this either promise for real romance, or the communication of Romance (in the relationships sense) as something sincere. You will find that even the poems that deal with heterosexual and homosexual relationships either approach such poems as an rhetorical game (Marlowe, Shakespeare, Donne, etc.) or focus more on failures. You get far more laudatory poems about Rivers and Bridges.

[mortalterror]

The English tradition has never been focused on the use of poetry for seduction - but has been interested in the rhetorical function of such. So, we may ask, is there actually a "Coy Mistress", and we will answer, most likely not. Is there Passionate Shepherd's Love? Probably not - and I doubt there is a nymphs to reply. The idea of this concept of Romance is hardly fitting. One should consider 20th century replies to Dover Beach in comparison.

Yet still we get countless ignorant people talking about this so called romance nonsense in poetry. I not only question this, I welcome someone to find me such beautiful poems in English (As are well known) that deliver in this either promise for real romance, or the communication of Romance (in the relationships sense) as something sincere. You will find that even the poems that deal with heterosexual and homosexual relationships either approach such poems as an rhetorical game (Marlowe, Shakespeare, Donne, etc.) or focus more on failures. You get far more laudatory poems about Rivers and Bridges.
Poetry is a perfectly effective medium for seduction if the person you are seducing is also a poet. The answer to your question should be obvious. Elizabeth Barrett Browning's How Do I Love Thee from her collection Sonnets From the Portuguese.

Sonnets from the Portuguese, written ca. 1845–1846 and first published in 1850, is a collection of 44 love sonnets written by Elizabeth Barrett Browning. The poems largely chronicle the period leading up to her 1846 marriage to Robert Browning. The collection was acclaimed and popular in the poet's lifetime and it remains so today.

Barrett Browning was initially hesitant to publish the poems, feeling that they were too personal. However, her husband insisted that they were the best sequence of English-language sonnets since Shakespeare's time and urged her to publish them. To offer the couple some privacy, she decided that she might publish them as translations of foreign sonnets. Therefore, the collection was first to be known as Sonnets from the Bosnian,[citation needed] until Robert suggested that she change their imaginary original language to Portuguese, probably after her admiration for Camões and his nickname for her: "my little Portuguese." The title is also a reference to Les Lettres portugaises.


How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.
I love thee to the level of everyday's
Most quiet need, by sun and candlelight.
I love thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints,—I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life!—and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnets_from_the_Portuguese

[luhsun]

Psychology cannot give a good definition as to what is real romance, or even what is romance scientifically.. It is interesting to see you folks from the literary worlds split hairs on what words/sequence of words/sounds could 'deliver' romance or love.

[YesNo]

For those of us who saw the movie, we will note the poem was meant to be so lame as to shift the embarrassment from Kumar's girlfriend (who had just had her wedding to another person ruined, and looked embarrassed) toward Kumar himself, by means of this mediocre poem. The whole point is that the poem is lame.
...
Now, back to the Square Root of 3, well, it fit a function in the film, but ultimately it is an ironic poem, like Spenser's attempt to write deliberately bad poetry as a poetic pun in the Faerie Queene - it serves as a plot device, not as good poetry.

I think you are missing the point this poem makes in the movie.

It is true that the poem is deliberately lame (or rather simple and heartfelt which an academic might dismiss as sentimental). However, it is also witty and metrically sound. It would appeal to the audience. The girlfriend herself studied poetry, the more respectable kind which probably made no sense to anyone in the audience. Here's the point: Kumar's lame poem trumped anything she was studying.

I guess that is where the "irony" fits in. It looked on the surface as if Kumar was deflecting embarrassment from her to him, but that was not the whole point. Kumar successfully mocked the intellectual, high class, poetic tradition his girlfriend represented and to which she almost married into.



The English tradition has never been focused on the use of poetry for seduction - but has been interested in the rhetorical function of such. So, we may ask, is there actually a "Coy Mistress", and we will answer, most likely not. Is there Passionate Shepherd's Love? Probably not - and I doubt there is a nymphs to reply. The idea of this concept of Romance is hardly fitting. One should consider 20th century replies to Dover Beach in comparison.

Yet still we get countless ignorant people talking about this so called romance nonsense in poetry. I not only question this, I welcome someone to find me such beautiful poems in English (As are well known) that deliver in this either promise for real romance, or the communication of Romance (in the relationships sense) as something sincere. You will find that even the poems that deal with heterosexual and homosexual relationships either approach such poems as an rhetorical game (Marlowe, Shakespeare, Donne, etc.) or focus more on failures. You get far more laudatory poems about Rivers and Bridges.

I agree with you that many poets write poetry as a sort of intellectual competition between themselves to see who is better by whatever standards an academic uses at the time to measure that. It is primarily an egotistical activity that an individual engages in and has nothing to do with romance.

On the flip side, few, outside those poets and academics, find them entertaining, entertaining enough to spend even a couple hours listening to as they would to that Harold and Kumar movie.

[JBI]

Poetry is a perfectly effective medium for seduction if the person you are seducing is also a poet. The answer to your question should be obvious. Elizabeth Barrett Browning's How Do I Love Thee from her collection Sonnets From the Portuguese.

Even of those poems, which aren't particularly great, mind you, this is one of the weaker ones. I remember being impressed by the poem when I was 12 or so, and then abandoning Barret Browning completely by the age of 16 or 17. Either way though, nobody ranks this one on the same level as her husband's poems of killing women.

[JCamilo]

Well, the point is if the poem can be or not about seduction, not if it is good (You are being far too harsh on Elizabeth, being worst than Robert is a merit that many good poets share and really, right now, she is more "remembered" than him again , after all, how many people read him those days. He became too restrict to a specilized reading while her appeal to direct emotions is much more popular).

But then, while this is a love poem and her collection of poems is very passionate, the feeling I got reading Sonnets from Portuguese is not seduction (even because she kind had him already), but exaltation. The poems have a religious tone and she was a religious person, interessed in medieval religious poetry. Some of early poems of both, clearly, are courting exanchange and seems more proper to be a romantic game - but here is a point - those poems are not not very "sensual" (I would say Keats poems to Fanny are more in this line, even more juvenile, even if we can say those are not Keats best poems). Elizabeth and Robert are both intelectuals, she is not extremelly expressive due to her physical/familiar condictions, he is very smooth also, their poems actually seems to be retorical and also a seduction game. And this is the point, medieval courtship in poems was rhetorical too. Dante's love poems (despite not intended to real seducation) is rhetorical. Even Shakespeare is rhetorical (in a way, Romeo and Juliet balcony scene can be said to be rhetorical) and this can be traced back to classical models, Ovid was rhetorical.

Maybe the point is the perception caused by romantic movement that love is some sort of consuming experience, so the poetry is pure emotion, but I think this is restricted in my opinion to the public perception of a handful of poets like Keats or Shelley, but they have a history to justify those emotions. Baudelaire is cynical, the Brownings a successful version of Abelard and Heloise, Tennyson is idealized and well, very victorian, Poe is morbid, Byron a comedian... this saying, I once saw a girl all wet because the guy was reciting Baudelaire La Muse Malade and you have to agree, this poem has nothing to do with swooning young maidens...