Poetry Forum

Can anyone here convince me to like this? Because, right now, I'm afraid I just don't get it.

I know what it is, but still can't see it as more than a piece of writing too short to be a short story.

One of the definitions I've found was that it uses metaphors, similes and imagery more vivid than most novelists. But then good novelists can sustain all of those things at usually a higher quality than most for an indefinite period of time. So how is prose poetry anything more than well-written prose?

Any examples?

I'm with you on this - It's just a bad hybrid to me, I can't really see the point of it - I used to be indecisive but now I'm not sure.

It's in the same league as race walking as far as I'm concerned - If you want to walk, then walk, if you want to run, then bloody well run - don't do both at the same time!

Alf Garnett

Yes, you could easily make a case that certan novels are really just extended prose poems. These definitions are never exact, but I'd go with size- a prose poem is just a very short piece of prose witten to stand on its own two feet as a piece of art. Basic definition, but probably the most useful. By their very nature, they tend to be more crafted and interesting than your average extract from a novel, but I don't think there's any requirement for that.

Thinking about it though, why can't they be poems, who made the rule that all poems had to be written with line breaks?

The best example I can think of off the top of my head is Hysteria by T.S.Eliot.

Maybe we should be talking about defining prose here, not pondering the 'rules' of poetry - I think prose poetry is a contradiction in terms. Here's an etymological definition of prose -

prose
c.1330, from O.Fr. prose (13c.), from L. prosa oratio "straightforward or direct speech" (without the ornaments of verse), from prosa, fem. of prosus, earlier prorsus "straightforward, direct," from Old L. provorsus "(moving) straight ahead," from pro- "forward" + vorsus "turned," pp. of vertere "to turn" (see verse).

"straightforward or direct speech" (without the ornaments of verse).

What do you mean sophistry?

Yes, but these terms were invented centuries before the advent of the novel, before texts of prose were considered to have artistic value.

In the 14th century, for example, was prose ever written down for the purpose of art, except maybe in a play? (And even then it was more the play itself that was considered the art, rather than the script.) Was there then a stricter differentiation between verse (art) and prose (not art) that doesn't exist now?

I mean, that definition of prose would rule out a lot of novels wouldn't it, James Joyce straightforward? But then, an Evelyn Waugh novel might be more readily be considered prose, as there isn't the obvious presence of the heightened language.

What do you mean sophistry?

Yes, but these terms were invented centuries before the advent of the novel, before texts of prose were considered to have artistic value.

Invented before the novel, yes - invented before prose texts were considered artistic? - Have you read Lucius Apuleius, Ferdowsi (Persian)? What about the Arthurian Romances that were taken up by the Norman French troveres, the ones from Brittany who understood Welsh and retold them - many of these were in prose form. The Norse Sagas were written in prose with poetry included in the text - both considered works of art, but classed as different forms even then.

The quote was just a reply to the rules of poetry - I think we can safely say that the rules of poetry can't be written down, they exist in only opinions, the same place where prose poetry either exists or doesn't.

cheers

Barrie

It's also a bit daft when looking at poetry. For example, comparing... say... something by Faulkner to some of Larkin's worst stuff. I'd class the grumpy git from Hull as the prose writer there, not the other.

I think it rests on the combination of the two genres. Ever since the novel has become an art form people have always taken the two hand in hand. There's never been a doubt that the finest piece of prose is poetry and the finest piece of verse is as powerful as prose. But by putting the two together one suddenly thinks that they are different, as if everything not classified as prose-poetry was never attached, in any way, to its similar brother. So what you get is just a furter alienation of the two genres where the assumed similiarity between has been thrown away. The combination, ironically, creates the schism.

Further definition, further distance so to speak.

So for me 'prose poetry' is a ridiculous term.

(Oh, great little conversation above by the way guys - really interesting)

Dave

Thanks Barrie, you know more than me. I think its safe to assume that I haven't read much Ferdowsi, but then I am a young whippersnapper.

Interestingly, when you actually look up "poem" it give you more than one definition, one of which is "verse as opposed to prose", which would certainly make "prose poem" a contradiction, but another two are: "3. A literary composition written with an intensity or beauty of language more characteristic of poetry than of prose.
4. A creation, object, or experience having beauty suggestive of poetry."

I agree that both vague enough not to be of any definite use in characterising a text, but still, perhaps worth bearing in mind. Perhaps there is something of a false dichotomy between "prose/poetry", when it should really be between "prose/verse".

In end I agree that these things tend to mean different things to different people, doesn't mean its not worth discussion of course though.

Thanks Barrie, you know more than me. I think its safe to assume that I haven't read much Ferdowsi, but then I am a young whippersnapper.

- And I'm a silly old sod, so that makes us about even.

If I remember rightly, poetry, poem come from the Greek verb poein - to compose. I think verses were originally sung during religious ceremonies, which is apparently how poetry originated. But who knows for sure?

Barrie