I don't understand poetry

[The_Hamster_King]

@thirdname

I once ran across an interesting take on poetry that I had never heard before. It was posted by Tom Clancy, of all people, in his newsgroup alt.books.tom-clancy where he used to post regularly.

Clancy is an idiot. And I say that as someone who has worked with him.

[pulykamell]

@septimus

Is it clear that all modern poetry is meant to be read aloud?

All? No. “Concrete poetry” for example is meant as a visual medium. But I would say, yes, most modern poetry is still meant to be read aloud.

edit: Even the poem in the OP is full of carefully crafted sounds and stresses that are, IMO, best fully realized when read aloud.

[Mosier]

@The_Hamster_King

Clancy is an idiot. And I say that as someone who has worked with him.

Anyone who has suffered through one of his novels already knows that.

[Happy_Poster]

Anaamika,

I’ve never understood poetry either. No interest in the stuff. When I encounter in a novel or whatever, I glaze over it. I have learnt a fair bit of poetry, but only to understand references and suchlike, and make my own when appropriate.

Nothing wrong with this. Don’t fuss, seriously.

[BlakeTyner]

@septimus

Is it clear that all modern poetry is meant to be read aloud? I love some older poetry, which sounds like beautiful music when read aloud, but much modern poetry lacks this effect. Indeed, sometimes the arrangement of line breaks seems intended more for the visual effect than as an aid for reading aloud.

Nah…as this thread suggests, it’s tough to nail down. Lots of poetry IS meant to be read aloud, but a previous poster pointed out that the use of space on a page is also significant–we can replicate some of that orally, but not all of it.

Poetry is a form of literature, and literature requires some artistic value–but I think that, while prose can indeed have aesthetic value, poetry values aesthetics more than prose does.

As the poster upthread points out, Tolkien certainly wanted his prose to have aesthetic value–I wouldn’t disagree with that. But in a lot of ways, poetry reverses the structure. Tolkien’s main goal was plot, and the aesthetics were secondary. In poetry, plot is usually secondary.

In “Dead Poet’s Society,” Robin Williams starts a class by explaining that some critic believes poetry can be nailed down into a neat little equation, and then then follows that by saying “Excrement!” That little scene says more about poetry than I ever could.

And I suppose I should add that it’s my least favorite form of literature.

[vdgg81]

@BlakeTyner

Poetry is a form of literature, and literature requires some artistic value–but I think that, while prose can indeed have aesthetic value, poetry values aesthetics more than prose does.

As the poster upthread points out, Tolkien certainly wanted his prose to have aesthetic value–I wouldn’t disagree with that. But in a lot of ways, poetry reverses the structure. Tolkien’s main goal was plot, and the aesthetics were secondary. In poetry, plot is usually secondary.

I kinda disagree. I don’t think all literature has to be concerned with aesthetics or art: I’ve been reading the “Dresden Files” novels by Jim Butcher lately and I don’t think it’s all that concerned with aesthetic effect. As far as I can tell they’re about pure entertainment. The main point, I think, is that Jim Butcher has no intention of producing art, while Tolkien did have artistic pretensions (and I think he succeeded mostly on what he proposed himself). Some literature is or wants to be art, some hasn’t that concern. Beside me I have a book on civil law and a newspaper and they’re prose literature but I don’t think anyone would argue they’re very artistic at all. (Also, not all verse is poetry. I have a great book on poetic forms called Rhyme’s Reason by John Hollander, in which Hollander illustrates each form by example, so that the explanation to what a sonnet is forms a sonnet and the definition of iambic pentameter is in blank verse. It’s a great book but the author himself would never claim it is poetry because it’s goals are not artistic.)

But even when we are talking about literature as art I don’t think the distinction between poetry and other forms should be made on the basis of emphasis on aesthetics or plot or other things like that. I’m pretty sure that the Iliad is more concerned with plot than Remembrance of Things Past and I’ve read essays that I thought were beautiful and provoked profound reactions in me of the same nature as those I’ve experienced reading poetry. I think it’s safe to say that if it is art then it has some sort of aesthetic goal. In a novel that is also a work of art, the plot can be a means of provoking aesthetic reaction as much as assonance in a poem and vice-versa.

I believe that if we are to distinguish between different types of literature we should probably look at the form more than at any other factor. Think of music: it’s much safer to state that some music is symphonic instead of chamber music by counting the number of players than it is by judging the grandeur of the theme being played, even though it is reasonable to argue that chamber music is usually more intimate in nature than a symphony. In art literature one finds plot more often in prose than in verse and the opposite is true of say, alliteration. However, many poems rely extensively on plot and many novels depend on strategies we usually regard as poetic for their effect. I think that the kind of definition that will face the least amount of exceptions is the one that focus more on the form adopted by the author to obtain his goal than one that focuses on specific elements of literature or on the goals of a work. Something like:[ul]
[li]Is this supposed to be art?[/li]Yes.
[li]Is it written in prose or in verse?[/li]Prose.
[li]Is this a narrative?[/li]Yes.
[li]How long is it?[/li]x number of words.
[li]Then it is a novel/novella/short story.[/li][/ul]
I’ll grant you that this example is too simplistic and can be bettered, but I believe something like this is much better to arrive at a definition of what something is than the kind of distinction that you propose. I’ll also grant you that as definitions go, this one isn’t all that useful, but we can use it as a starting point to the look at other things. After you decide that something is indeed poetry, than you can look at what makes it tick and why that text should or shouldn’t have been written as a poem, why poetry is or isn’t more appropriate for it, why the author chose to write it as a poem and so on.

[Rodgers01]

Anaamika, do you enjoy narrative, rhyming poetry - la The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, The Raven, or The Night Before Christmas? I can’t say I get much out of other types, but something with a strict meter, a story, and a rhyme scheme will usually impress me with its sheer cleverness.

[smiling_bandit]

I generally hate poetry. I like prose, impromptu, maybe eveb declamation, but not poetry. Pretty much the only poetry I’ve ever liked at all are Edgar Lee Masters, a smattering of Shakespeare (mostly his low-class works)… and that’s about it. Poetry has absolutely no appeal to me, and I have no interest in meter or pattern. Frankly, I find more artistry in a decent translation of Sun Tzu than I do in poetry.

[Shagnasty]

@Rodgers01

Anaamika, do you enjoy narrative, rhyming poetry - la The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, The Raven, or The Night Before Christmas? I can’t say I get much out of other types, but something with a strict meter, a story, and a rhyme scheme will usually impress me with its sheer cleverness.

I read this and I agree. I got a brilliant idea that I realized had probably been done before. Of course it had. This variation explains a lot in the evolution of poetry in my mind.

The Raven: Rap Version

[Zsofia]

So, under some of the definitions of this thread, are those very constrained prose stories poetry? I mean “six word stories” and such - two examples:

“The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock at the door.”

And Hemingway’s “For sale: Baby shoes, never worn.”

[bagga]

I’ve always thought that the truly valuable, distinct thing about poetry is the thing that makes you recognise it as poetry. Poetry is a way of using language outside the ordinary way; purely by being ostentatiously stylised it helps us keep our ideas of language flexible and can communicate things in a way that you wouldn’t be ‘allowed’ to in normal prose.

[BlakeTyner]

@vdgg81

Something like:[ul]
[li]Is this supposed to be art?[/li]Yes.
[li]Is it written in prose or in verse?[/li]Prose.
[li]Is this a narrative?[/li]Yes.
[li]How long is it?[/li]x number of words.
[li]Then it is a novel/novella/short story.[/li][/ul]

That was a very well-written and well-thought-out, post, vdgg81, and I hate to even destroy it by quoting only the one part of it, but I think that we are getting close to the Lacan concept of chasing signifiers. In order to answer the first question, we have to agree on a definition of ‘art’. And as I’m sure you know, we could have a knock down drag out about that one, too.

On day one of freshman literature, I always ask my students “What is literature?” Discussion usually ensues until we reach the point of “recognized artistic value” (in other words, what is a text and what is just a collection of words?)

I hate to fall back on cliche, but perhaps both questions (what is art/literature? and what is poetry?) lead us to “well, I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

Regardless, I think you bring up a great perspective on the discussion, but I also think that we’re entering the territory where we leave the layman behind, and while that’s valid–and expected on the Dope–I know enough to know that I’m not armed for that battle. My understanding of poetry is only marginally above that of a layman, so I must step aside.

[pulykamell]

@Zsofia

So, under some of the definitions of this thread, are those very constrained prose stories poetry? I mean “six word stories” and such - two examples:

“The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock at the door.”

And Hemingway’s “For sale: Baby shoes, never worn.”

I certainly think they can be, if the intent was to present it as such. Both those examples, in my opinion, can easily be presented either as poetry or prose.

I think the Gaiman poem, even if it were written as prose, looks and feels distinctly like a poem. And there are poems that do just that called prose poems.

[ouryL]

I like to think of poetry as a song without music.:o

[Teacake]

Nemerov:
**"Because you asked about the line between prose and poetry.
**
Sparrows were feeding in a freezing drizzle
That while you watched turned into pieces of snow
Riding a gradient invisible
From silver aslant to random, white, and slow.

There came a moment that you couldn’t tell,
And then they clearly flew instead of fell."

Or Coleridge: “Prose is words in their best order; Poetry is the best words in the best order”.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

I just wanted to take an opportunity to invite anyone who is interested in this thread to participate in the next SDMB Poetry Sweatshop, which is coming up this weekend. Between 8 AM PST, Friday, February 26th and 6 PM PST, Sunday, February 28th, any interested poets will have one hour to write a poem. In the last hour, an Anthology thread is established along with a poll for SDMB members to vote for their favourite poem. The author of the favourite poem is acclaimed Poet Laureate of the SDMB, and as a consequence is treated with tremendous respect, at least until the next Poetry Sweatshop.

Details are to be found at this thread - no previous experience required!

I’m hoping some of you may feel inspired.

[Maserschmidt]

This is probably a fine place to mention that an anthology thread has gone up, and it’s looking for some votes.

[wonky]

I think attempting to define poetry is a losing game. I’m a poet; I hang out with poets. There’s no such thing as a definition that encompasses every poems that we write, though I find that if a poem takes you from point A to point B with no diversions–like getting directions through MapQuest–I’m probably not going to think much of it as poetry.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

@Maserschmidt

This is probably a fine place to mention that an anthology thread has gone up, and it’s looking for some votes.

Perhaps I should only speak for myself here, but I’m also pretty sure any one of the poets from the Anthology would be willing to answer any questions about why they made some of the choices they did… It’s an interesting situation, being able to send a poet a PM.

[BrainGlutton]

Maybe it’ll help understand what poetry is if you look at it kind of sideways. From “The Prevention of Literature,” a 1946 essay by George Orwell on the effects on literature of totalitarian government, or politics-with-totalitarian-tendencies among the intelligentsia:

It is not certain whether the effects of totalitarianism upon verse need be so deadly as its effects on prose. There is a whole series of converging reasons why it is somewhat easier for a poet than a prose writer to feel at home in an authoritarian society. To begin with, bureaucrats and other “practical” men usually despise the poet too deeply to be much interested in what he is saying. Secondly, what the poet is saying–that is, what his poem “means” if translated into prose–is relatively unimportant, even to himself. The thought contained in a poem is always simple, and is no more the primary purpose of the poem than the anecdote is the primary purpose of the picture. A poem is an arrangement of sounds and associations, as a painting is an arrangement of brushmarks. For short snatches, indeed, as in the refrain of a song, poetry can even dispense with meaning altogether. It is therefore fairly easy for a poet to keep away from dangerous subjects and avoid uttering heresies; and even when he does utter them, they may escape notice. But above all, good verse, unlike good prose, is not necessarily and individual product. Certain kinds of poems, such as ballads, or, on the other hand, very artificial verse forms, can be composed co-operatively by groups of people. Whether the ancient English and Scottish ballads were originally produced by individuals, or by the people at large, is disputed; but at any rate they are non-individual in the sense that they constantly change in passing from mouth to mouth. Even in print no two versions of a ballad are ever quite the same. Many primitive peoples compose verse communally. Someone begins to improvise, probably accompanying himself on a musical instrument, somebody else chips in with a line or a rhyme when the first singer breaks down, and so the process continues until there exists a whole song or ballad which has no identifiable author.

In prose, this kind of intimate collaboration is quite impossible. Serious prose, in any case, has to be composed in solitude, whereas the excitement of being part of a group is actually an aid to certain kinds of versification. Verse–and perhaps good verse of its own kind, though it would not be the highest kind–might survive under even the most inquisitorial régime. Even in a society where liberty and individuality had been extinguished, there would still be a need either for patriotic songs and heroic ballads celebrating victories, or for elaborate exercises in flattery; and these are the kinds of poems that can be written to order, or composed communally, without necessarily lacking artistic value. Prose is a different matter, since the prose writer cannot narrow the range of his thoughts without killing his inventiveness. But the history of totalitarian societies, or of groups of people who have adopted the totalitarian outlook, suggests that loss of liberty is inimical to all forms of literature. German literature almost disappeared during the Hitler régime, and the case was not much better in Italy. Russian literature, so far as one can judge by translations, has deteriorated markedly since the early days of the revolution, though some of the verse appears to be better than the prose. Few if any Russian novels that it is possible to take seriously have been translated for about fifteen years. In western Europe and America large sections of the literary intelligentsia have either passed through the Communist Party or have been warmly sympathetic to it, but this whole leftward movement has produced extraordinarily few books worth reading. Orthodox Catholicism, again, seems to have a crushing effect upon certain literary forms, especially the novel. During a period of three hundred years, how many people have been at once good novelists and good Catholics? The fact is that certain themes cannot be celebrated in words, and tyranny is one of them. No one ever wrote a good book in praise of the Inquisition. Poetry might survive in a totalitarian age, and certain arts or half-arts, such as architecture, might even find tyranny beneficial, but the prose writer would have no choice between silence or death. Prose literature as we know it is the product of rationalism, of the Protestant centuries, of the autonomous individual. And the destruction of intellectual liberty cripples the journalist, the sociological writer, the historian, the novelist, the critic, and the poet, in that order. In the future it is possible that a new kind of literature, not involving individual feeling or truthful observation, may arise, but no such thing is at present imaginable. It seems much likelier that if the liberal culture that we have lived in since the Renaissance comes to an end, the literary art will perish with it.