What the hell is poetry?

See, not that is the sort of thing that makes me question the poetics of it.
It just looks like prose to me.
If you remove the line breaks, does it change it any?

I don't get it.

[courtney_autumn]

Originally Posted by Lin

See, not that is the sort of thing that makes me question the poetics of it.
It just looks like prose to me.
If you remove the line breaks, does it change it any?

I don't get it.

Some poetry exists to show the beauty in the thing itself, rather than the beauty of "poetry" itself. Most of the classical Japanese poets, and the Modernists who they influenced, particularly the Imagists, are concerned with the poetry of reality as opposed to the artifice of poetic device.

It's a fascinating irony, however, because a poem can never be the thing itself; a poem will always be something constructed, and in turn becomes something else, a reality of it's own. If you ever read Wallace Stevens, he plays with this paradox throughout his work in some very stunning ways.

Anyway, William Carlos Williams said a poem “must be real, not 'realism', but reality itself." There's nothing else to get. You don't have to like it or agree, but this view of poetry is going to exist anyway. And taking this view of poetry isn't to the exclusion of appreciating other views of poetry.

I can't imagine anybody saying that poetry should exist to show poetry itself.
I picked two for this that do, as illustrations for the discussion in this thread.

I would call this flash fiction really. Maybe if that had been around at the time Williams would have called it that, too.
If you think it's beautiful, great.
But please don't put words in my mouth about what poetry is or isn't.
I can't imagine anybody taking the stance you seem to be laying on me for whatever reason.

The question here is "what is poetry". As opposed to writing that isn't poetry, one assumes. I'm trying to address that.

There has to be something more than "just is" or "real" or whatever involved, wouldn't you say? Otherwise, we're right back to "what the hell is it" and somebody saying, "Can't explain it, just is, anything you say is poetic works as well as anything else."

If you can explain to us, why that's poetry instead of just a guy writing a few lines about plums, please do. But I wish you'd stick to saying what you say, not inventing what you say I say.

apropos of that, you might find this interesting
http://www.writersbeat.com/showthread.php?t=39316

[courtney_autumn]

Originally Posted by Lin

I can't imagine anybody saying that poetry should exist to show poetry itself.
I picked two for this that do, as illustrations for the discussion in this thread.

I would call this flash fiction really. Maybe if that had been around at the time Williams would have called it that, too.
If you think it's beautiful, great.
But please don't put words in my mouth about what poetry is or isn't.
I can't imagine anybody taking the stance you seem to be laying on me for whatever reason.

The question here is "what is poetry". As opposed to writing that isn't poetry, one assumes. I'm trying to address that.

There has to be something more than "just is" or "real" or whatever involved, wouldn't you say? Otherwise, we're right back to "what the hell is it" and somebody saying, "Can't explain it, just is, anything you say is poetic works as well as anything else."

If you can explain to us, why that's poetry instead of just a guy writing a few lines about plums, please do. But I wish you'd stick to saying what you say, not inventing what you say I say.

You've made it clear it you don't think this poetry, so I'm not really presuming anything or putting words your mouth (interesting, how you lob that accusation whenever someone disagrees with you). I'm just saying it doesn't matter if you think so; others define poetry as reality, and therefore, it exists as poetry. Your definition doesn't trump the poems of Williams or Pound or Basho.

(And no, I don't think WC Williams would call his work "flash fiction." He was a poet.)

Discussions about "what poetry is" are interesting and thought-provoking in themselves, but trying to define "what poetry is" is always going to be an idiotic endeavor. Not because just anything goes in poetry, but because it is the nature of poetry to defy definition. Whenever you attempt to lay down the law about what makes a piece of writing a poem, you are tempting poets to prove you wrong.

So no, I'm not foolish or presumptuous enough to say what it is, or isn't. To me, that's not the point. There will be some poetry I like, and some I don't, and if I'm lucky, there will be lots of poetry that challenges what I expect of poetry. Is there really a point to saying what it is? I think anyone with any interest in poetry has as much of a right to it as anyone else. I just don't see that as pointless, however. It's what makes poetry exciting.

No, in fact, if you look back you respsond to several things here that I never said.
And yes, I mention it because it's not a good thing to do people. Your snide use of that is just a jab, because it's easy for anybody to read a thread back and see if there is anything behind it or not.

Hard to say what Williams would have said, actually, at this remove in time. He might have been delighted with the concept of flash fiction and found it more appropriate to what he was doing. Who knows?

The name of this discussion if "what the hell is poetry". so "what poetry is" kind of comes with the territory.
If it's not "anything goes", then what goes and what doesn't? You seem quite convinced that I am somehow wrong, but unable to commit to anything on your own.

If you want to lay down the law, do ahead. I don't anybody else here doing that.

If you think it's presumptuous and pretentious to discuss the "what is it" aspects of poetics, what are you doing in this thread?

I don't mind taking risks in doing so. I've been around poetry for a long long time, in many capacities and think my ideas might be interesting to some.

I don't know where you come up with the idea that poetry might be something not everybody has a right to. You must be hanging out with a bad crowd.

I definitely see that sort of concept coming out of academia, and have opposed the idea very vigorously at many points in my life.

What I said here was that poetry is a special language. (Not all little "artifices of device" you dragged into the discussion). I think that's a very healthy concept and one that's helpful to people interested in poetry.

It seems to bother you, but you don't articulate why or posit anything else.

The idea is pretty simple. There's a word, Poetry. As opposed to Prose, kind of the default of language. What's the difference?
If there is no diffference, why bother to have the concept.

I've tried to say something here, and you are flipping out over it and impugning things to me that I didn't say or believe in. God knows why.
But it doesn't help you any to do that.
And it's kind of a pain in the ass.

[maidahl]

:-)
Ain't it soetry?

[maidahl]

zoetry?

You knoetry!

[Ethan Blake]

Originally Posted by courtney_autumn

. Most of the classical Japanese poets, and the Modernists who they influenced, particularly the Imagists, are concerned with the poetry of reality as opposed to the artifice of poetic device.

I wandered lonely as a sheep
That floats on high o'er grass and hills,
When all at once I saw a bunch,
A host, of white daisies;
Beside the tree, beneath the sky,
Fluttering and boogying in the wind.



Kind of loses something don't you think? There is, I believe, a skill to the 'Artifice' used by poets, and I am assuming your meaning of the word was craft, that is lacking in free verse or Mini Prose pieces. No doubt there are some free verse writings that have wonderful meaning and texture and are beautifully written, it's just that in my view, they're not poems, simply wonderful prose and I see nothing wrong with that!
Why do you want to call it poetry?

Best regards
D

[courtney_autumn]

Originally Posted by Ethan Blake

I wandered lonely as a sheep
That floats on high o'er grass and hills,
When all at once I saw a bunch,
A host, of white daisies;
Beside the tree, beneath the sky,
Fluttering and boogying in the wind.



Kind of loses something don't you think? There is, I believe, a skill to the 'Artifice' used by poets, and I am assuming your meaning of the word was craft, that is lacking in free verse or Mini Prose pieces. No doubt there are some free verse writings that have wonderful meaning and texture and are beautifully written, it's just that in my view, they're not poems, simply wonderful prose and I see nothing wrong with that!
Why do you want to call it poetry?

Best regards
D

I Hate Incense
A master’s handiwork cannot be measured
But still priests wag their tongues explaining the “Way” and babbling about “Zen.”
This old monk has never cared for false piety
And my nose wrinkles at the dark smell of incense before the Buddha.
– Ikkyu

Nobody babbles about "Zen" anymore.

I'm amazed anybody would still be babbling about "modernism"

[Ethan Blake]

Originally Posted by courtney_autumn

I Hate Incense
A master’s handiwork cannot be measured
But still priests wag their tongues explaining the “Way” and babbling about “Zen.”
This old monk has never cared for false piety
And my nose wrinkles at the dark smell of incense before the Buddha.
– Ikkyu

And there you have it !
An interesting intro to a short story!

NOT a poem, simply prose!

Best regards
D

[jonparov]

I have just finished reading a long essay called Literary Taste - written in 1909 by Arnold Bennett. He advises reading William Hazlitt's essay 'On Poetry In General', which can be found in a book entitled 'Lectures On The English Poets'. Followed by Wordsworth's essays 'Advertisement', 'Preface', and 'Appendix' - found in 'Lyrical Ballads'. Then of course you should read some poetry! Including parts of the bible - he singles out Isaiah CH 40 - and Wordsworth's own 'The Brothers'. It is his assertion that by following this course of reading matter anyone can gain an understanding, and appreciation of poetry.

[Edrey]

I had a friend try, at my request, to explain poetry to me, and exhibit some good examples. She had two piles, one large and full of good poetry, the other some good indicators of what isn’t actually poetry at all.

In the 'bad' pile was a Bukowski poem which was the only one I connected with and understood at a glance. I felt instantly able to take more away from the poem than what the words literally told me - which was apparently what I was meant to have been doing all along.

But, thing is, that’s what I take away from good prose, too.

I thus humbly acknowledge that I suck at reading poetry, and cede the territory to those who get it. The genre has to be better off that way.

[maidahl]

I think anyone who reads this whole thread faithfully will learn pretty much what poetry is and is not. I certainly burned my eyes out but now I never want to hear another attempt at defining poetry.

Poetry is hell.

[maidahl]

Wait.. to read? Poetry is hell to read... Not sure if I agree, you see? Poetry, to me, is... something good that also rhymes with "ee".

Hell is poetry!

[maidahl]

AHHHH...Oh. I agree whole-heartedly. makes sense the inversion. the inversion makes sense

Hell, Is poetry!