Why poetry?

[Dichroic]

Why do you need to write something as a poem? Why not just spit it out in plain prose? Now and then we do get something posted in the crit forum that seems to be more prose than poetry, and it's always difficult to explain why. I'm sure prose vs poetry has been hashed over here a million times, but I recently wrote something in a crit and I'd like to get opinions as to whether I was off base:

"In my opinion (only my opinion, I mean) prose is when yo're saying what the words say. Poetry is when you need to convey something you don't quite have the words for and so you use implication, elision, metaphor, simile, rhyme, rhythm, metonymy or whatever other tools you need to imply a meaning that isn't entirely there in the words."

I hope Aglaia will forgive me for using her as an example, but her piece Hospital (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103427) has been fascinating me. What happened there was that she was having trouble conveying emotions in a scene in her fiction and so she wrote it as a poem to work that out. IMO, and by the definition I give above it *is* a poem. It isn't a great poem, as several critters have pointed out, but it didn't need to be. On the other hand it is IMO excellent writing, clear and vivid and powerful, and I suspect it gave her what she needs totake back to her story. In the light of what I've written above it fascinates me to actually see someone use poetry as a tool, to work out how to convey emotion she hasn't been able to get across in prose.

So what do you think? Am I off base here?

[C.bronco]

A poem is an art form unto itself. It's like a painting, a glimpse, a vignette. A good poem is like an arrow into the heart.

[Writer???]

"In my opinion (only my opinion, I mean) prose is when yo're saying what the words say. Poetry is when you need to convey something you don't quite have the words for and so you use implication, elision, metaphor, simile, rhyme, rhythm, metonymy or whatever other tools you need to imply a meaning that isn't entirely there in the words."


Actually it's quite the opposite of what you posted if I understand you correctly. Poetry is the concise selection of proper words to express the emotion, imagery, and impact that prose is free to express with as many words as you choose. Poetic metaphore, simile, etc. are actually a well to draw from that prose is often too explicit to need. We actually have more words to use because of them.

Those, and other poetic devices are chosen carefully so that the reader will make the connection between "falling leaves" and years of life.

Poetry, whether rhymed or not, metered or free, is a "considered" expression where end-words of line breaks, and even beginning words of each line SHOULD have thought given to them to bring a unity or symmetry to the whole. This is especially vital to free verse where you don't have the end rhyme to help you out.

In unrhymed blank verse, or again unmetered AND unrhymed free verse, poetic device such as assonance, consonance, alliteration etc, all become more important as these are precisely what help distinguish prose from poetry. In reality, the further you get from "formal" poetry, poetry of any strict form, the more important you word selection becomes in one sense.

In metered poetry you have guidlines to help you select the word, i.e., the meter you have chosen. The words must fit the pattern. (at least to a certain degree)

In unmetered free verse you have the world of words at you disposal so selection becomes important if you want your poetry to be more than prose with fancy line breaks.

"Cadence" or the "song" of the poem comes from the words chosen and the device used. A poem with cadence, even just a short or broken cadence not prevelant throughout the entire piece, will distinguish it from prose.

Will people notice the "song" of the poem? No, not always. But they will see how much you were able to say and how well you said it and how well it flowed in so few words. You, and they, will know if the message is powerful and complete, or weak and cheaply done.

It's not a "not having" the words, like we don't know what to say or are forbidden from using certain words, it's the challenge, and as said by CB the "art", of choosing the right words to say in a line or two, what prose might say with a whole paragraph (or even page for really great poets).

You can prattle on endlessly in prose about the beauty of your love and list all her features and expound on your devotion to her, or, you can "compare her to a summer's day" :D and the latter is done, NOT for lack of words, but rather out of careful, considered selection, and application of understanding and talent not always required by prose.

[Dichroic]

Actually it's quite the opposite of what you posted if I understand you correctly. Poetry is the concise selection of proper words to express the emotion, imagery, and impact that prose is free to express with as many words as you choose.
<snip>
You can prattle on endlessly in prose about the beauty of your love and list all her features and expound on your devotion to her, or, you can "compare her to a summer's day" :D and the latter is done, NOT for lack of words, but rather out of careful, considered selection, and application of understanding and talent not always required by prose.

I don't think I agree. I mean, you can, of course you can, but if you do it's not "good" prose. Some of the most craft-conscious writers I know say they try never to permit a sentence to stay in their story that doesn't do at least two, preferably three things. Jane Austen is a great writer from time when writers were expected to be far more verbose - so I was surprised, in a recent close reading of Pride & Prejudice, to find her doing exactly the same thing. And prose is permitted to use any of the poetic tools except rhyme and too tight a rhythm. It's not required to though, whereas I'm not sure you can have a poem without at least one of the forms of metaphor. And though you can certainly have a poem without rhyme or meter, I don't believe you can have a good one without some attention to what you're calling the cadence of the words.

[skelly]

This comes up here from time to time, and in various forms. In the end it always becomes a debate between two different kinds of people: those who have a rigid set of requirements that a work must meet before it can be called poetry, and those who do not.

I tend to fall into the latter category. A poem (such as the one you reference, Di) may look like prose chopped
up and flush
with the
left margin,
to me...
but I can't be certain that it doesn't sing and flow some special way in the mind of the person who wrote it. That is why I am very hesitant to tell people that a particular work is, or is not, a poem.

I see a lot of talk about what requirements the poet has to meet to satisfy THE READER. For some, those criteria involve rhyme and meter in varying degrees of complexity. Others emphasize the use of metaphor and image over language and structure. There is some truth in those things, I suppose, but I give equal weight to the artist, and his or her "vision" (for lack of a better word). Just because something doesn't look like a poem to me doesn't mean that it won't communicate effectively the artist's vision to a thousand other readers, who may consider it to be poetry of the highest and finest form.

I posted a poem here recently, "The Blonde Barbarian Woman of my Dreams," and received an interesting comment. A reader wanted to know what made it a poem, as it didn't seem to fit any of the criteria that he had been taught regarding poetry. He indicated that it would be impossible for him to critique the poem because it didn't conform to anything against which he might make some contrast, or comparison. Ultimately, he wanted to know what kind of poem it was.

I didn't really have an answer for him. It isn't any particular kind of poem. I puposefully refuse to write a particular kind of poetry precisely because I would rather the reader concentrate on the image, or the message, or the story, than the form I use to present it. And in those rare instances when I do choose to write a more formally structured poem, there is always a very specific reason for having done so; the structure of the poem enhances the image, or underscores the message, or helps to tell the tale. In "The Body Farmer," some God-knows-how-many pages back on this forum, I very purposefully wrote a rhymed and metered poem, and then just as purposefully deconstructed that form at the end of the poem to indicate the narrator going insane. We can debate whether or not it worked all day long. What is certain is that these devices that we use (or purposefully choose not to use) are nothing more than tools. They are not themselves poems, or poetry, nor does the presence (or lack of) these devices in a particular piece determine if or not the piece IS or IS NOT a poem.

So why write a thing one way and call it a poem, and then write some other things some other way and call them prose? I haven't the faintest idea. I could hint around at the answer to that question, I suppose. I could point out that poetry employs concise language, strong imagery, and the use of metaphor and other literary devices, but good prose does all of those things as well. All I can do is tell you my personal definition of poetry, vs. prose. For me, prose tells you a story, and poetry makes you feel. Obviously prose can make you feel and poetry can tell a story...but for me, it's a matter fo where you put the emphasis. For me, poetry is an attempt to reveal and describe things for which a single word, or a sentence, or a paragraph, or an entire book full of the same, simply will not suffice. Sometimes I think that poetry is an attempt to take pure thought from one person's mind and reassemble it--precisely as it was formed--in the minds of others.

But that's just craziness! :)

[Writer???]

Yes, good prose writers may use poetic device, but they will not need to limit themselves to form, meaning word and/or line length, imposed by choice of meter, or meter and specific foot. And even the best prose is going to be of a longer sentence length generally than poetry. By "prattle on" I mean the abundance of words such as articles, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions etc. that are way more prevelant in prose than good, concise poetry. It's one, or used to be, of the biggest comments in the critique forum, "trim, trim, trim".

As for metaphor, do you actually mean that a good poem can not be written about a true, personal experience without the use of metaphor? I would say that that's no more true for poetry than it is for prose. It's a tool, if it's use serves the work, use it, if not, don't.

"And though you can certainly have a poem without rhyme or meter, I don't believe you can have a good one without some attention to what you're calling the cadence of the words."

I believe that's exactly what I said...

"Cadence" or the "song" of the poem comes from the words chosen and the device used. A poem with cadence, even just a short or broken cadence not prevelant throughout the entire piece, will distinguish it from prose.

Your question was "Why Poetry?" and in the post you said...

"Poetry is when you need to convey something you don't quite have the words for and so you use implication, elision, metaphor, simile, rhyme, rhythm, metonymy or whatever other tools you need to imply a meaning that isn't entirely there in the words."

Cadence is a tool. But it has nothing to do with the "meaning" of the word. Cadence is found in the accent, rhyme, assonance, consonance, alliteration, etc. of the word in connection to the line or the whole. It helps the poem sing or flow well off the tongue when done well, but it does not effect the meaning of the words used. The best way I know to describe it is that cadence is that quality that makes me say "Hey, that is really smooth! Why does that read so well?"

Dylan Thomas wrote...

"The bows glided down, and the coast
Blackened with birds took a last look
At his thrashing hair and whale-blue eye
The trodden town rang its cobbles for luck."

Now that has a wonderful cadence, comprised of several poetic devices, but I fail to see how it effects the meaning of any of it. How does the cadence, or rhyme effect the meaning of "took" and "look", or the assonance of "at and thrashing" or "hair and whale"

Simply because greater care must be taken to concisely tell a story or relay an emotion, again, does not mean that "we don't have the words", or just because something seems easier like prose vs. poetry, that does not mean that is the only thing we should write. I really don't get the first line of your post...

"Why do you need to write something as a poem? Why not just spit it out in plain prose?"

Nobody NEEDS to write a poem. We NEED or WANT to express ourselves and will CHOOSE whether to do that by writing prose, poetry, historical fact, technical journal, Sci-Fi, or whatever.

That's like asking, "Why paint with anything but a spray can?"

Any writing is a personal choice and everyone will have their own answer as to what and why.

[Writer???]

No Skelly, the quetion was "Why poetry?" at all, "Why not just spit it out in prose?"

This is not the same debate over poetry and prose, it's a why poetry at all topic.

[skelly]

Why do you need to write something as a poem? Why not just spit it out in plain prose? Now and then we do get something posted in the crit forum that seems to be more prose than poetry, and it's always difficult to explain why. I'm sure prose vs poetry has been hashed over here a million times, but I recently wrote something in a crit and I'd like to get opinions as to whether I was off base:

"In my opinion (only my opinion, I mean) prose is when yo're saying what the words say. Poetry is when you need to convey something you don't quite have the words for and so you use implication, elision, metaphor, simile, rhyme, rhythm, metonymy or whatever other tools you need to imply a meaning that isn't entirely there in the words."

I hope Aglaia will forgive me for using her as an example, but her piece Hospital (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103427) has been fascinating me. What happened there was that she was having trouble conveying emotions in a scene in her fiction and so she wrote it as a poem to work that out. IMO, and by the definition I give above it *is* a poem. It isn't a great poem, as several critters have pointed out, but it didn't need to be. On the other hand it is IMO excellent writing, clear and vivid and powerful, and I suspect it gave her what she needs totake back to her story. In the light of what I've written above it fascinates me to actually see someone use poetry as a tool, to work out how to convey emotion she hasn't been able to get across in prose.

So what do you think? Am I off base here?
This is what I am responding to, Writer???

My fault for not organizing my thoughts better, of course. But I think I'm pretty much on topic.

:)

[Writer???]

"But that's just craziness! :)"

Indeed! Stop scramblin' ma brainz :D

[Aglaia]

I hope Aglaia will forgive me for using her as an example, but her piece Hospital (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103427) has been fascinating me. What happened there was that she was having trouble conveying emotions in a scene in her fiction and so she wrote it as a poem to work that out. IMO, and by the definition I give above it *is* a poem. It isn't a great poem, as several critters have pointed out, but it didn't need to be. On the other hand it is IMO excellent writing, clear and vivid and powerful, and I suspect it gave her what she needs totake back to her story.
To be honest, as a former teacher, it makes me pretty happy when anything I do (even writing a sub-par poem ;)) sparks a discussion, so consider yourself forgiven. And, you know, buttering me up didn't hurt. :D

Regarding the poetry issue itself, I think you've brought up a fascinating issue, and one I've thought about a lot since I've started roaming these boards. I'm not a poet myself, but I've done some study of it (though I confess that my work has always been primarily focused on fiction), and I enjoy reading it.

I'm with skelly on the form thing (I read that crit of "The Blonde Barbarian Woman of my Dreams," by the way, and had much the same reaction as you). However, my overall sense of poetic form has always been that form should follow function. Simple as that. As a critter (which is my primary role), I always assume that the form of the poem means something, but it can't mean anything if the poet says "gee I think I'll write a sonnet today." If however, the poet says, "I want to communicate xy today and in order to do that the words have to look like this," then the form has meaning. Sorry, I think I might be straying from the topic...

In the light of what I've written above it fascinates me to actually see someone use poetry as a tool, to work out how to convey emotion she hasn't been able to get across in prose.

Poetry can have an emotional "bang" that fiction doesn't (although I've read some fiction that does, when handled properly), and yes, that's what I was looking for. It's funny to me that it just "felt" like a poem, and only really after stepping away from it for awhile was I able to recognize what you all did immediately - that it was really an unfinished prose scene. I wonder if it was the emotion I had tied up in it that led me to classify it as poetry since I do tend to identify poetry as more emotional than fiction. See, Dichroic, now you've got me thinking, too. :D

Actually it's quite the opposite of what you posted if I understand you correctly. Poetry is the concise selection of proper words to express the emotion, imagery, and impact that prose is free to express with as many words as you choose. Poetic metaphore, simile, etc. are actually a well to draw from that prose is often too explicit to need. We actually have more words to use because of them.
...NOT for lack of words, but rather out of careful, considered selection, and application of understanding and talent not always required by prose.
Not to get all ranty, but I'd argue that good prose writers (and I'll give you that the number is fairly small) do all of the things you've listed here as belonging to poets.

[Don Allen]

For me poetry is all about intense emotion, that's why
I like it.
Prose need to explain themselves, but poetry can just jump into the fire and talk about how much it burns without explaining why, where, who, what or how... Sometimes we all need to express that intensity without the fluff that goes with it, thats poetry...

[William Haskins]

asking why not just describe the content of a poem as prose is akin to asking why an artist bothers to paint something when they could just describe it in words.

[skelly]

asking why not just describe the content of a poem as prose is akin to asking why an artist bothers to paint something when they could just describe it in words.
Exactely. Or hand you a bowl of fruit.

[Steppe]

I have read, I think hundreds of definitions of poetry vs prose.The only ones who seem to be satisified with them are the ones who wrote them.

They remind me of St. Augustine saying that he knew what time was, but when ask, he could not say.

I know what poetry is vs prose but cannot tell you how or what it is.
I only know for myself. I know, I know! How can I know if I can't explain! Go figure.

[William Haskins]

the OP seems to be making a generalized indictment of poetry based on a subset that perhaps resembles, in its execution and effect, prose. that's a different subject and, in my view, a valid one.

but when talking about 'poetry' (in its truest sense) vs. prose, you are talking about two entirely different art forms, bit of which happen to use the same medium: words.

the effects and impressions of poetry, at its best, is markedly different from the effects and impressions of prose. it affects the brain differently and taps into emotions differently.

[skelly]

It's not an indictment. The question is based on some stuff that has popped up in the crit forums. It's a good question, and worth discussing. To wit: if we are going to tell someone that they have chopped up some prose and presented it as a poem, how do we justify that statement.

[Steppe]

When we were children, we first learned to speak using mostly verbs and nouns.If left alone, I think we would grow up to be fine poets.

But by and by our parents and others demand explainations, so we learn to use adjectives and adverbs, thus setting us up for prose.

As an adult I find it hard when trying to write poetry to get rid of the life time use of these these and concentrate verbs and nouns.

I think the heavy use of Adj. and adverbs is one telling point to poetry vs prose.

[William Haskins]

It's not an indictment. The question is based on some stuff that has popped up in the crit forums. It's a good question, and worth discussing. To wit: if we are going to tell someone that they have chopped up some prose and presented it as a poem, how do we justify that statement.

my use of the word "indictment" was not an accusation, so much as an observation.

my point is that if one presents, as an example, "poetry" which resembles chopped-up prose, the argument becomes irrelevant, a straw man that cannot be universally applied, but only applied in weak examples.

[Aglaia]

my point is that if one presents, as an example, "poetry" which resembles chopped-up prose, the argument becomes irrelevant, a straw man that cannot be universally applied, but only applied in weak examples.
Well, speaking as the writer of said "poetry," perhaps my view carries little weight, but I would argue that no matter where the question begins, it's a valid one. There's no reason to shut down an intelligent discussion of the genesis of poetry just because it happened to spring from a crap poem. I happen to think that Don Quixote is one of the worst books ever written. That doesn't mean that I can't see the merits of discussing Spanish literature.

[William Haskins]

i'm not sure where all the "shutting down the discussion" talk is coming from.

by all means, discuss.

[Aglaia]

i'm not sure where all the "shutting down the discussion" talk is coming from.

by all means, discuss.
Well, I guess when someone says that an argument is irrelevant, I assume they mean it isn't worth discussing. I apologize if I misunderstood your meaning.

[William Haskins]

let me try to clarify because i haven't been intentionally antagonistic in this thread.

many things qualify as "poetry" in our age. from prose poems, spoken word poems and free verse to semi-formal verse to formal verse which, in nearly all cases, adheres to a codified, canonized definition of what poetry is.

given that broad a definition, someone who contends that, or inquires if, poetry is just prose broken into lines, is going to find some works identified as poetry they can use to make that argument or find that answer to their question.

therefore, the question (as posed, to presumably refer to any and all "poetry") is not refined enough to reach a real conclusion. it's further complicated by the vast disparity in what poetry is to many different people, rendering it nearly impossible to accurately debate.

that said, i have no problem with people attempting it.

but, to me, if you take the most formal end of the spectrum, there is a separation from prose that is distinct and special. rhythm, rhyme, musical syntax (alliteration and assonance, for example) all add value beyond the reach of prose (though there can be no denying that prose can sometimes achieve a poetic tone and quality).

even less formal forms, when making use of metaphor, eclectic rhythms, imagery and a compressed and succinct delivery of ideas that reside more in the emotional than the rational universe, also transcend the normal limits of prose.

there are forms of self-identified poetry that i do consider essentially prose in their expository and inflated nature, so in that regard i agree with the OP.

but it's in a narrow context; not exceedingly narrow, but far moreso than a discussion that tries to apply a general criteria to an ocean of forms and approaches.

[skelly]

I didn't think you were trying to be antagonistic, William. You are expanding the discussion nicely, I think. The point is...imo...that we each of us believe we know what this thing is, and if we are going to set about telling others (in this case, Aglaia) what it is NOT, then we ought to be able to justify our opinion.

That's how I've been approaching this thread, anyway.

[Don Allen]

let me try to clarify because i haven't been intentionally antagonistic in this thread.

many things qualify as "poetry" in our age. from prose poems, spoken word poems and free verse to semi-formal verse to formal verse which, in nearly all cases, adheres to a codified, canonized definition of what poetry is.

given that broad a definition, someone who contends that, or inquires if, poetry is just prose broken into lines, is going to find some works identified as poetry they can use to make that argument or find that answer to their question.

therefore, the question (as posed, to presumably refer to any and all "poetry") is not refined enough to reach a real conclusion. it's further complicated by the vast disparity in what poetry is to many different people, rendering it nearly impossible to accurately debate.

that said, i have no problem with people attempting it.

but, to me, if you take the most formal end of the spectrum, there is a separation from prose that is distinct and special. rhythm, rhyme, musical syntax (alliteration and assonance, for example) all add value beyond the reach of prose (though there can be no denying that prose can sometimes achieve a poetic tone and quality).

even less formal forms, when making use of metaphor, eclectic rhythms, imagery and a compressed and succinct delivery of ideas that reside more in the emotional than the rational universe, also transcend the normal limits of prose.

there are forms of self-identified poetry that i do consider essentially prose in their expository and inflated nature, so in that regard i agree with the OP.

but it's in a narrow context; not exceedingly narrow, but far moreso than a discussion that tries to apply a general criteria to an ocean of forms and approaches.

An excellent definition, but again I must add that prose by any measure should be a completed thought, as opposed to poetry which almost by definition can be ambiguous in nature while representing the purest of thought. (sounds confusing until we examine such poetry as "Mother Goose") Which stowed politically charged rhetoric aimed squarely at a ruling class. Even the most elequent prose couldn't compete , or I should say, accomplish the goals, set forth in the poetic forum.

With one notable exception.......Shakespeare

[Writer???]

<snip>...The point is...imo...that we each of us believe we know what this thing is, and if we are going to set about telling others (in this case, Aglaia) what it is NOT, then we ought to be able to justify our opinion.

That's how I've been approaching this thread, anyway.

I agree, and my "justification", though perhaps poorly stated, throughout this discussion in regards to the OP is that poetry is NOT used because of a lack of words to describe or convey something in prose. Mainly because prose dosen't have the limitations THAT CAN BE imposed by poetry's form AND, because prose has the same devices at it's disposal. I mean, the argument really seems to defeat itself.

Of course the writer can explore ways of saying something they are having difficulty with, but the OP merely used that example to ask the question "WHY POETRY?" at all "Why not just spit it out in prose?", which to me is an entirely different thread discussion from the one we are having now.

As for justification of what is poetry vs what is prose, (which is said entirely different question than the one posted), we all read various rules of poetry, or study the forms and devices etc. and everyone has different attitudes as to where they draw the line on what is what. but I think we all at least agree that must in some way use some device (other than the line break) to distinguish a poem from prose.

It doesn't have to be metaphor, as indicated by the OP or any illusionary device, it doesn't have to be simili or elision or ANY specific device, it could be as simple and unabtrusive as asssonance to provide a pleasant flow off the tongue. Whatever device use need not change the meaning of what is said. All it need do is provide an aspect that ALONG with line breaks, distinguishes it from prose. I don't think anyone could be more open or accepting of what is a poem than that.

And just to clarify, I never said that prose doesn't use poetic device. I said not always, and not required.

And I think the small handfull of writers that may pay attention to device hardly constitutes a norm, or general acceptance of their necessity where prose is concerned.

In the end I don't care what others call poetry. People should write whatever they want and if they choose to call it poetry, so be it. However, when they ask, What is poetry or is this poetry, then all I can do is answer them with what I have learned and believe to be poetry. And that is that both poetry and prose have all the same words and tools at their disposal, but poetry needs to make use of at least two of them them, and prose is free to NOT make use of them though it could, and the writer will decide which to do. BUT, if they decide it is to be a poem, it does indeed need to have more than line breaks. I don't know how, as a reader and/or critiquer I could be any more open or accepting than that.

[skelly]

Of course the writer can explore ways of saying something they are having difficulty with, but the OP merely used that example to ask the question "WHY POETRY?" at all "Why not just spit it out in prose?", which to me is an entirely different thread discussion from the one we are having now.

As for justification of what is poetry vs what is prose, (which is said entirely different question than the one posted), we all read various rules of poetry, or study the forms and devices etc. and everyone has different attitudes as to where they draw the line on what is what. but I think we all at least agree that must in some way use some device (other than the line break) to distinguish a poem from prose.

Why do you keep saying that? Here are the first two paragraphs of the OP:

Why do you need to write something as a poem? Why not just spit it out in plain prose? Now and then we do get something posted in the crit forum that seems to be more prose than poetry, and it's always difficult to explain why. I'm sure prose vs poetry has been hashed over here a million times, but I recently wrote something in a crit and I'd like to get opinions as to whether I was off base:

"In my opinion (only my opinion, I mean) prose is when yo're saying what the words say. Poetry is when you need to convey something you don't quite have the words for and so you use implication, elision, metaphor, simile, rhyme, rhythm, metonymy or whatever other tools you need to imply a meaning that isn't entirely there in the words."

Did you just stop reading after the first two sentences W??? ? God bless you my friend, I mean no ill will, but your constant insistance that I and/or the rest of the thread have read the OP's question wrong is getting annoying. You took the two first sentences of the OP and decided to focus on that. I moved on past those sentences and focused on what I felt was more the issue. Either one of us could be right, or completely wrong as to what Di's true focus was with that post, but everything that has been discussed since can be traced right back to that post.

[Writer???]

Well, if we could both be right, and I have offered comment regarding the rest of the post as you see it, why do you feel it necessary to call me out like this?

I am not alone - "This is my answer too. Thank you, William. I don't quite understand the question, really. I write poetry when I write poetry and I write prose when I write prose." - KTC

"asking why not just describe the content of a poem as prose is akin to asking why an artist bothers to paint something when they could just describe it in words." - W. Haskins

I think if you actually bothered reading my posts you'd see that I have said a lot of what others have said AND have dealt with everything I can think of that the OP was talking about. Even you have said virtually the same thing I did when you responded to Haskins post -

"Exactely. Or hand you a bowl of fruit." - Skelly

and this is what I had said earllier -

"That's like asking, "Why paint with anything but a spray can?" - Writer???

You have focused on specific points of my posts and chosen to ignore the whole of what I said. In my opinion YOU want to continue making this about the same old rehash of prose vs. poetry and I have tried to accommodate in a helpful, friendly manner. I just don't choose too ignore what was actually said.

You thinkng you get to decide what this thread is about despite what it says, and what I should or shouldn't say is annoying as well. You've been on this kick since your first post in this thread and have decided it's all about what is prose vs what is poetry. Fine. But if you would actually read and consider the OP you'll see it is much deeper than that.

It's about using poetry as a tool, it's about poetry being able to express what prose cannot. It's about the use of device and the freedoms and limitations of both prose and poetry. I am sorry that the highlighted sentence annoyed you, perhaps YOU could read on beyond the first sentnce or two and see that I did respond to the thread as you have defined it.

Go back and ACTUALLY read the posts, you'll see that YOU have told both me and Haskins what this thread is about. YOU have decided what we should be talking about here. And again, I HAVE talked about every aspect of the OP that I can think of and offered what I can of what I know.

I honestly don't understand your attitude lately, but I will do my best not to annoy you anymore.

[skelly]

I'm certainly not trying to have conflict with you, W??? I promise you that. I just don't understand why, twice, you have felt the need to point out that people who were coming at this discussion from an angle other than yours were not responding to the original post. There's nothing wrong with my attitude, and I apologize for making you feel that I was "calling you out."

[Writer???]

Terrific, I say let's let it go and hopefully continue on as respected friends. I take your point and we need not discuss it nor derail this thread any more. Thanks.

[LimeyDawg]

I use poetry to improve my prose. I think, at some point, the development of poetry was a way to distinguish a writer from the herd. I might be wrong, but in the day of spoken communication, it certainly would have stood out. Also, not everybody can do it well. I mean, we can all speak, just like we can all pick up a pool cue, but not everyone can run the table, knowwhutImean? I absolutely love to read stories with a poetic flair. You know, when the writer pays attention to poetic devices, but cleverly disguises them as prose. I think this falls under the literary category, but I could be wrong.

[Dichroic]

Writer????, you've written two things here that seem to disagree with each other: In one message,
I agree, and my "justification", though perhaps poorly stated, throughout this discussion in regards to the OP is that poetry is NOT used because of a lack of words to describe or convey something in prose.

Yet later you say,

It's about using poetry as a tool, it's about poetry being able to express what prose cannot.

That second sentence is close to my original point: I think we write poetry because sometimes it says what plain words (prose) cannot. As you have said, you can use almost all the tools of poetry in prose (except rhyme - too much of that and people will assume you are trying to write in verse) but my answer is that if you use those tools well enough, if you was painting in the subtle shades of meaning you can get from intermiginling words instead of the broader brushstrokes of denotation, there will come a point when your intended prose becomes poetry. It just happens less often than the other way around.

Similarly, I think William Haskin's point reinforces mine, rather than contradicting it. You paint a picture as a way to say something you can't say in words, whether that's because the wrds don't exist or because you the creator just happen to be more fluent in visual images. Even in the very simplest interpretation of a simple picture, the painter is saying "Look how beautiful this is!" - but if you're not in front of that scene, it would be easier to show someone the painting that to explain all that the word "this" contains. (Of course beauty is not the only idea a picture can convey: I'm just using it as an example.)

[Writer???]

The first quote is a response to answer Skelly's point of justifying our stance on prose vs. poetry.

The second sentence is my explanation of what I see the thread is about beyond a mere prose vs. poetry. So yes, it does agree with what you said because that what I interpreted you to say.

Now, just to clear up my position since it has become rather muddied I am beginning to wonder what I said myself...

You said...
"That second sentence is close to my original point: I think we write poetry because sometimes it says what plain words (prose) cannot."emphasis mine

Since eveyone has basically said that prose has at it's disposal ALL the words and devices that poetry has, and that some prose writers do indeed use these same tools, this would seem to be a contradictory statement, as the only thing left if all tools (devices such as metaphore, ellision, assonance, etc.) are equal would be line breaks, and I fail to see how line breaks would help one say what they can't in prose. Again, I'm not getting your original question because it sounds like you are saying that poetry can say what prose can't, but then you and others turn around and say that prose has and uses everything that poetry does, it just doesn't make any sense.

If (and I agree that you can) you can write with metaphor and other mentioned devices in prose, why can't you just work it out in prose, why would poetry be the tool to help you work things out?

And all this goes to my original point...

"Poetry is the concise selection of proper words to express the emotion, imagery, and impact that prose is free to express with as many words as you choose. Poetic metaphore, simile, etc. are actually a well to draw from that prose is often too explicit to need. We actually have more words to use because of them."

It has nothing to do with a lack of words as you said or implied in your OP...

"In my opinion (only my opinion, I mean) prose is when yo're saying what the words say. Poetry is when you need to convey something you don't quite have the words for and so you use implication, elision, metaphor, simile, rhyme, rhythm, metonymy or whatever other tools you need to imply a meaning that isn't entirely there in the words." emphasis mine.

because (as you and eveyone has agreed) ALL words and ALL device other than line breaks are AVAIABLE and used in both prose and poetry.

I took your OP to mean that prose was more literal than poetry, and poetry was not literal, but a metaphorical, etc. medium, and my point was that yes, poetry does have those devices, but it can be literal as well and therefore has a larger well to draw from than prose because I think that poetry can use both literal and metaphorical in a freer way, or larger mix, than good prose can.



W. Haskins said your question was like asking an atist why bother to paint something when they could just decsribe it in words, and KTC agreed and said he didn't understand the question either. If you want to see that as reinforcement, that's fine. I took it the same way KTC did, and I'm not trying to put words in HW's mouth, but I think that's the way he meant it. If I am wrong, I'm wrong, nothing new there.

Still with me? Still friends? :D

Now, while prose can use metaphor and the other devices mentioned, simply adding them to prose and perhaps over doing it as you implied, will not suddenly make your prose, poetry. You may have poetic SOUNDING prose, but there is a lot more AND a lot less to poetry.

Like I said, the CONCISE selection of words to convey the message or image. I mean, a sentence of prose might be reduce to a word or two of poetry. And, if it is not trimmed, and word choice given priority, you will hear about it in critique.

I believe prose can be very poetic without being a poem. And a poem can be very prosaic without being prose. Personally, I love poetic prose, but it does not seem many out there are willing to accept it. As soon as you get too poetic they tell you to make it a poem, you make it a poem and they tell you to trim, trim, trim. This often leads to re-wording severely, or readjusting your meter or syllable count, and what you wind up with is "acceptable" to others as a poem, but far from what you originally intended. And, this serves to point out the difference, often vast difference between prose and poetry.

Which goes back again to my original post, it is not a lack of, or not having, the words in prose that leads one to poetry to say something. Prose has all the words and all the tools.

It is the concisesness, the trimness, the carefull selection of every word. AND YES, prose writers can and do take care in word selection, but GENERALLY they use MORE of them than a poet will. and their selection will not be to the degree a poet is expected to apply.

Poor example, but example nontheless :D

SENTENCE -
The ball went bouncing down the street too fast for sammy to catch it before it was swallowed by the gaping mouth of the gutter.


POEM -
Bouncing ball
bounce
bounce
gaping gutter
goodbye ball

The sentence uses a metaphor (mouth) that is absent from the poem. The poem conveys basically the same sentiment as the sentence yet is trimmed considerably and laid out in such away as to help visualize the ball bouncing away. The poem is entirely literal in its simple use of a gutter "opening", where the sentence uses the imagery of a gaping mouth. The poem uses repetition, alliteration, and consonance (goodbye ball), while the sentence uses consonance in "ball went bouncing" and "gaping mouth of the gutter." The sentence names the owner, while the poem leaves the reader free to imagine a little girl or boy or group of children playing ball.

[Dichroic]

Er, that's not what I said. For one thing, prose can't use ALL devices poetry can. Rhyme, for instance. Second, while modern poetry does seem to have moved toward brevity, that hasn't always been true. Do you believe Shakespeare was more careful of precise wording in his poetry than in his prose? I doubt it.

Your example of the bouncing ball is a very good one, I think, perfect for this discussion. Where I disagree with your conclusions is that while the two recount the same event, I do *not* think they say the same thing. In this case, the prose gives us more factual detail, but the poem conveys a far more vivid idea of the experience.

[Writer???]

So to be clear, are you saying that Shake's poetry WASN'T more trimmed and precise than his prose? The form and structure he adhered to would do that alone. But yes I do believe he was concious of the difference and made word choice, line length, etc appropriately. You don't allow that WS would have given a little more thought and selection to "Shall I Compare Thee To A Summer's Day", than to say the dialog of a scene of "Romeo and Juliet"?

But, as almost everyone will tell you, we have moved on from WS and to write like him, or use him as example today is very much behind the times. I like him, don't get me wrong. I like rhymed, structured poetry, but in general and I repeat for clarification GERNERAL, rhymed, structured poetry, formalized poetry, is cnsidered passe' by all but a handfull of us die-hards, and even I am weakening.

There have been several eras or stages of "modern poetry" since WS and we don't have to jump to today to see brevity as a marked sign of poetry vs prose. And it is my opinion that such brevity calls for more care in selection. If you buy a bag of apples at the store you get a bag of apples. But, if you're only buying one, you're going to select, with more care, just the one you want.

[Writer???]

And yes, I agree with your assessment of the sentence/poem, and I believe an earlier poster made a similar comment about poetry being more expeirience revealing or whatever you want to call it. But, I think this is perhaps a "by-product" of the necessary bevity and careful word choice. I didn't set out to make the poem more experience related, I simply wrote the sentence and then trimmed to what I felt were the absolute minimum words needed to convey the same or similar, and added some poetic device and reformatted.

I don't know. Does it come down to a conscious decision by the author to relate the smell of a rose/or the experience of smelling a rose, or, is that a result of the brevity and word choice by using words that get that experience across to the reader without the use of a lot of articles, adverbs, adjectives etc.?

[Norman D Gutter]

Why do you need to write something as a poem? Why not just spit it out in plain prose? ...I'm sure prose vs poetry has been hashed over here a million times....

"In my opinion (only my opinion, I mean) prose is when yo're saying what the words say. Poetry is when you need to convey something you don't quite have the words for and so you use implication, elision, metaphor, simile, rhyme, rhythm, metonymy or whatever other tools you need to imply a meaning that isn't entirely there in the words."
...
So what do you think? Am I off base here?

This is an excellent discussion topic, Dichroic. What you are sort of asking is are some topics better suited to poetry, some better suited to prose, and how can you tell the difference? How does the writer decide at the outset when to use poetry or prose?

I don't think any topics are unacceptable as poems, though some are obviously better suited either to poetry or prose, depending on the writer's intentions. For example, it would be difficult for me to express engineering concepts in poetry. I can just see the engineering training manual:

"Go rightly calculate hydraulic jumps
and so eliminate some costly pumps."

Although, I did have a couplet in a workplace ditty that wasn't bad:

"What we need is a sump that will clean out the crud
that accumulates during the hundred year flood."

I think if the primary purpose is to use words to educate or inform, prose is the correct medium. If the primary purpose is to inspire a reaction of intellect, emotions, or spirit, poetry might be best (though obviously prose can do that as well). The difference is, IMHO, the writer's intention.

I like the way Thomas Babington Macaulay defined poetry and its effect:
By poetry we mean the art of employing words in such a manner as to produce an illusion on the imagination, the art of doing by means of words what the painter does by means of colours.... Poetry produces an illusion on the eye of the mind....

If the writer's intent is to convey information in a manner most easily understood by the intended audience, whether to educate or inform or solicit a reaction, write prose. If the writer's intent is to tweak the imagination of the reader, to evoke reactions, to lead the reader to realms of imagination in a way that flat words cannot, write poetry.

So it seems to me. Your mileage may vary.
NDG

[Writer???]

"Go rightly calculate hydraulic jumps
and so eliminate some costly pumps."

Hey, I could dig it!

[Dichroic]

I don't think any topics are unacceptable as poems, though some are obviously better suited either to poetry or prose, depending on the writer's intentions. For example, it would be difficult for me to express engineering concepts in poetry. I can just see the engineering training manual:

"Go rightly calculate hydraulic jumps
and so eliminate some costly pumps."

NDG


Norman
You know you've just flung down a gauntlet, right? :tongue

Paula
BS, Mechanical Engineering
MS, Physical Science (concentration Space Science)

PS. I did already attempt astrophysics (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102805).

[Norman D Gutter]

Paula:

I had no idea. My data:

BS, Civil Engineering (environmental emphasis)
MS, Civil Engineering (environmental emphasis)

So, how do you convey rocket science in poetry?

NDG

[Dichroic]

I'm fond of Rhysling's Jet Song, myself:


When the field is clear, the reports all seen,
When the lock sighs shut, when the lights wink green,
When the check-off's done, when it's time to pray,
When the Captain nods, when she blasts away --
Hear the jets!
Hear them snarl at your back
When you're stretched on the rack;
Feel your ribs clamp your chest,
Feel your neck grind its rest.
Feel the pain in your ship,
Feel her strain in their grip.
Feel her rise! Feel her dive!
Straining steel, come alive,
On her jets!
(from Robert A. Heinlein's The Green Hills of Earth)

[Dichroic]

Norman: two engineering poems coming right up. I wouldn't say the bear dances well, but it definitely does dance.