If I were to explain as succinctly as I can the failure of contemporary poetry, I can do no better than to post this meme.
>>24695982Poetry still exists, it's just published as sound recordings set to music rather than in print.
>>24696226>nigga nigga nigga nigga>one hunnid pah-cent nigga>nigga nigga nigga nigga>two hunnid pah-cent nigga
>>24696283I didn't say specifically rap (though some of it absolutely is poetry), but music in general- the distinction between poetry and song is a fairly modern concept.
Oll Korrect, but the influence of style and formatting extends far beyond pottery. My aunt is the most hideous soul incarnate in this modern day. Yet she managed to marry herself to a comedically small, comedically rich crypto-jew, and therefore proceeded to enlist an platoon of the finest plastic surgeons, dermatologists, tailors, and hairdressers, and has formatted herself into a very attractive stanza, and everyone (except yours truly) has completely forgotten what a horrible little worm she actually is. It's all just style over substance. It always was, but it's even moreso now. The solution is mandatory blindness.
>>24696293Just because something takes on poetic elements doesn’t make it poetry.
>>24696293>the distinction between poetry and song is a fairly modern concept.(I)>Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic: poetry, and the music of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are all in their general conception modes of imitation. They differ, however, from one: another in three respects,—the medium, the objects, the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.>For as there are persons who, by conscious art or mere habit, imitate and represent various objects through the medium of colour and form, or again by the voice; so in the arts above mentioned, taken as a whole, the imitation is produced by rhythm, language, or 'harmony,' either singly or combined.>Thus in the music of the flute and of the lyre, 'harmony' and rhythm alone are employed; also in other arts, such as that of the shepherd's pipe, which are essentially similar to these. In dancing, rhythm alone is used without 'harmony'; for even dancing imitates character, emotion, and action, by rhythmical movement.(VI)>Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions. By 'language embellished,' I mean language into which rhythm, 'harmony,' and song enter. By 'the several kinds in separate parts,' I mean, that some parts are rendered through the medium of verse alone, others again with the aid of song.>Now as tragic imitation implies persons acting, it necessarily follows, in the first place, that Spectacular equipment will be a part of Tragedy. Next, Song and Diction, for these are the medium of imitation. By 'Diction' I mean the mere metrical arrangement of the words: as for 'Song,' it is a term whose sense every one understands.
>contemporary poetry is just line breaks!>my six year old could paint that modern art!>music these days is just noise!And don’t get me started on those tv shows with all the swearing and the nude scenes!
>>24696305What's the distinction you're making exactly?
>>24696469Doesn't a lot of modern art existing primarily for money laundering purposes?
>>24696480*exist, typo
>>24696480No, that’s not how money laundering works. Only people who don’t understand art or money laundering think that. Art can be an asset class for investors, but so can anything
>>24696480One of the most reddit, STEM-bugman, braindead opinions I see out there.Asset speculation, sure, that's a respectable thing to claim. >le it's all fake and used for crimefuck off. yes I'm triggered
>>24695982Redditsoy spacing is too annoying for the 4chud as he sits around solving CAPTCHAs all day like a good little soulless spergborg for gookmoot.Life's mysteries...
>>24696304What the fuck are you yabbering about, schizo?
>>24696551I'm saying everything is surface vanity and pomp and pose my love.
>>24696480I hate people like you. You are posing a retarded statement as a question, pretending to be curious, but in reality, you can't even be bothered to research the question in the slightest. It is nothing but an emotional expression of your dislike for people buying expensive art. What is your question even implying? What do you know about money laundering? How would buying modern art somehow be a more efficient means of laundering money compared to all the other methods that exist? Do you have any evidence for your statement at all?
>>24696497It's a reason that the materialists can accept as to why modern art is objectively detrimental to society. I'm happy to share in that view if it means we advance to a point where it's no longer contentious to criticize modernity.
Oh,oh-oh! You see, the kids these days, they listen to the free verse poetry, which gives them the brain damage. With the hippin' and the hoppin' and the bippin' and the boppin', they don't know what the formalism is all about. Y'see, formalism is like Jello pudding... no, that's not it. Formalism is like Kodak film... no, that's not right neither. I've got it, formalism is like the new Coke - it'll be around forever.
>>24696720Very true.I hate snarky retards like you. What's the implication, that the rap and culture of the 90s which puritans were demonizing didn't contribute to the rise of the gangs and drug use of today?
>>24696725It was definitely the rap music that led to the crime. In the 60s and 70s, before the scourge of the rappers, our land was at peace. Then came the Sugar Hill Gang…It wouldn’t surprise me if Bin Laden himself hadn’t secretly been listening to Will Smith records in his cave. Probably what spurred him on.If he’d only listened to heavy metal instead, he might have killed himself in some weird satanic ritual and 9/11 could have been avoided
>>24696735Funny that you bring up the 60s and 70s, a period noted for its mass media caused cultural revolution. Someone has tricked you that wit isn't a prerequisite for sarcasm, or even worse, that you posses it
>>24696735The big power outage in new york in the mid 70s is genuinely cited as an formative time for hip hop because all the looting allowed for them to get hold of turntables and equipment they otherwise didn't have.
>>24695982>the failure of contemporary poetryWe both know you haven't read a poem since high school. We both know you've never seriously read contemporary poetry, you've seen other imageboard anons post screenshots of Rupi Kaur poems. You think that this is representative of contemporary poetry. You think this because you're a retarded pseud who cares more about being seen as intelligent and learned than you care about reading good literature. I'd post some good contemporary work, but I know all you'll do is reflexively say it's shit and then strut around like you've proved something.
>>24696489There are literally facilities designed for the express purpose to store billions of dollars worth of art owned by billionaires. They are never viewed or admired by said billionaires or anybody else. The reason for this? You don't pay tax on art. It's just money in the bank.
>>24696283Shakespeare never recovered from this.
>>24696678It's simple, people see things like artist's poop and banana taped to the wall or whatever being sold for fortunes and refuse to believe someone actually unironically thought it's worth as much. I's just too surreal, too mind-boggingly stupid. Therefore they seek for any rational reason for why it happened and assume it's some rich people tax avoiding scheme or money laundering or whatever, since, as it is said, when there is no apparent reason, money is the reason.
>>24696810>all the looting allowed for them to get hold of turntables and equipment they otherwise didn't have.while retarded music critics poo-poo’d disco and were gearing up to BUKKAKE CUM BLAST third-rate “punk rock” piffle like ‘London Calling’, broke uneducated black people were cribbing from old Dub Soundclash, Kraftwerk, Funk, and Soul records and revolutionizing the earliest modes of what later became Electronic Music… and honky’s haven’t stopped bitching and moaning about it for almost 50 years now.And the worst part is? Public Enemy’s FEAR OF A BLACK PLANET straight up just rocks harder than anything Led Zeppelin ever did. Cope or Rope, it makes no difference to me.
>>24695982>contemporary poetryIs that even a thing? Do people actually read any of it?
>>24695982>>24696304The relationship between form and substance are indeed becoming very muddied. Creative pursuits are so much defined by extrinsic causes that they're literally called "content." >The solution is mandatory blindness.Retarded take. We're in too far to turn back now. The solution is to walk into the trap with our eyes open.
>>24695982The text isn't metrical so the top one is just as much free verse as the lower one, you are implying that formatting is the only issue in poetry?(yes, I know it's lorem ipsum gibberish)
>>24696866That’s…not money laundering. That’s just unrealised capital gains same as real estate or a vintage bottle of wine. Basic hedge investing
>>24697073I agree, black Americans as a whole were the most revolutionary, influential, and arguably greatest in Western popular music since the 20th-century, but I still think nuance is lost in these discussions. It’s the unfortunate phenomenon of chudification, and then anti-chudification, retarded terms I just made up right now.Chuds won’t want to admit the first part of my post, and they will be very aggressive and confident about how “It’s just an evil nigger hoodrat rap industry (run by Jews to corrupt us all, incidentally), niggerifying zoomers and contributing to a ghetto culture celebrating crime, violence, and drugs,” without any nuance to it.But a far more toned-down version of the chud view has some point to it, I think. There’s some big flaws in black American inner city culture, even blacks can see it. Then some of the culture-vultures of the industry get off on this, more controversy in the music = more sales and more diehard fans, and so they push degenerate shit in music. I honestly think it’s even a way of keeping black people down. Most of the people in charge of the record labels don’t someone there like Immortal Technique rapping about holes in the 9/11 story and shady things around it, for instance. Fentanyl and hos, on the other hand…
Read up on neo-formalism and the 'poetry wars'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Formalism>poets who wrote free verse and Confessional poetry were alleged to be social progressives, anti-racists, and as New Left socialists.[31] New Formalist and New Narrative poets, on the other hand, were stereotyped as old money White Anglo-Saxon Protestant preppies and as Anglophiles filled with hatred of the American Revolution and nostalgia for the British Empire.[31] American poetry in traditional verse forms was, according to polemicists defending "The Free Verse Revolution", reactionary, Eurocentric, un-American,[32][31][33] white supremacist,[31] and even fascist.[34] For female New Formalists, The Poetry Wars meant accusations of betraying their gender and the cause of feminism; similar accusations were unleashed against minority New Formalists
>>24697216Legitimately sounds like a runaway KGB project and cultural infiltration (perhaps unwittingly to many of the marks, but happening nonetheless).And note Russia’s intelligence, the FSB and whoever, still even work on shit like that now, they target both dissident leftist and dissident rightwing spheres of the West, perhaps particularly America, to push anti-American pro-Russian views, or at minimum views beneficial to Russia’s foreign policy, a side-effect of which could be ideologies like this.The leftists they target by talking about neo-imperialism, neo-colonialism, imperialist NATO expansion, how Russia is on the side of the global South and a multipolar world order against NATO/de facto U.S. dominance, how they’re still in the Cold War mindset, etc.Right-wingers of course, you can see what rhetoric they go for to get them if you look at /pol/ or circles of X (Twitter) for instance, sometimes it’s just promoting simple isolationism, other times explicit Russia-fellating, Russia as trad, conservative, a bastion of traditional values, fighting against the evil godless Globohomo empire of the West, etc.I’m not blaming EVERYTHING on the Russians, but looking back I can’t help but see this as straight up Cold War KGB subversion. Yuri Bezmenov and Joseph McCarthy were right about some things, I believe.
>>24696821>I know all you'll do is reflexively say it's shit and then strut around like you've proved something.That was me in that other thread lmao
>>24697134It's literally the same text word for word. The only difference is how the words are positioned: prose on the top, poetry on the bottom. The söyjak doesn't give a shit when it's prose but loses his shit for the exact same words in the exact same order when it's LE POETRY!!!
>>24696469>contemporary poetry is just line breaks!>my six year old could paint that modern art!>music these days is just noise!This but unironically
>>24697079>Do people actually read any of it?No.
>>24696821>I'd post some good contemporary workYou mean you'd post the titles, but you're too chickenshit to post the actual poems themselves.
>>24697300Those who arguethat there hasn't been a decline in quality of artmust argue that feces collectedfrom a toilet paper asswipeare equal in all parts(save technical skill),to (for instance),The Haymaker.Art is nothing to them.They are anti-artistic,anti-creative,and the fact that they botherto participate in artis solely a resultof their own narcissismand arrogance,ratherthan the love of Art itself.If one denies that art can be exclusiveand defined by rigid criteria,one also denies the existence of art entirely;If "Red" is defined by any and allwavelengths of light,all pitch and tones of sound,all sensible phenomena,It is nothing.
Poetry with no meter is quite literally not poetry.
>always the BOVGVEREAV lol
>>24697290No the first is formatted in lines as poetry, you literally couldn't understand a gayjack meme
>>24697378Ah, but where do you draw the line as what what counts as meter? If you write a poem that is technically all in metrical feet but with no pattern of the feet, is it free verse or metrical? (e.g. a total mix of iambs, anapests, spondees, etc. that doesn't repeat as a pattern)
>>24697387>the first is formatted in lines as poetrySo how would you format the same words as center-aligned prose?
>>24697387OP here. The top is meant to be prose. I suppose I should have used justified alignment to make it more obvious.
>>24697408Have the lines justified and equal length. Like the second-to-last line could easily incorporate "ex ea" from the next line, that makes it look like a deliberate line break.>>24697420Much better, I now appreciate your meme
>>24697397Vers libre in the 'traditional' sense
>>24697338No, faggot, I'd post links to the poems. But it doesn't matter because I know better than to talk about poetry on /lit/. Again, none of you know what you're talking about when you talk about poetry, and you will all reflexively start screeching retarded faggotry about MUH RHYME and MUH METER, so I won't
>>24697457>I'd post links to the poemsExactly. You wouldn't post the actual poems, because you're just a little piece of shit.
>>24697457Rhyme and meter are pretty important. Even prose stylists consider things like meter, rhyme, assonance, alliteration….in fact the most skilled of them always do to some extent. It may not be as obvious as poetry, but there’s a reason certain writers seem more skillful than others: they are more confident and masterful in playing with language, in a way that feels both natural and intriguing. Why should that be different for poetry?
>>24697474How do you think this is going to go? Do you think you're going to goad me into posting a contemporary poem I like? No matter what it is, you'll extend zero charity and you'll put forth zero effort to appreciate it. You'll just make fun of it and then you'll prance around like you're very smart and very well-read. (You will read this and reply with something like "you know it's all bad because if it was good you'd post one so there I win!" So predictable.) Sorry, anon. I know better than that
>>24697457Poetry needs to have something. Most anons that hate on poems without rhyme and meter are criticizing the "poetic" anarchy of modern "poetry". They'd be okay with Beowulf or Ezra Pound (mentioned in a wiki quote earlier) as in pic related. Essentially all contemporary poetry is genuine garbage, but obviously that doesn't negate the few individual examples of better-than-average you'll be able to find in the wild. Invariably, these "contemporary poets" are at their best when they are at their least "contemporary".>Sick unto death, his dwelling must look for>Unwinsome and woful; he wist the more fully>The end of his earthly existence was nearing,>His life-days’ limits. At last for the Danemen,>When the slaughter was over, their wish was accomplished.
>>24697496>Why should that be different for poetry?Ask picrel
>>24697498>you'll extend zero charity And where's your charity?>You'll just make fun of it and then you'll prance around like you're very smart and very well-read.I'm doing that already lmao>You will read this and reply with something like "you know it's all bad because if it was good you'd post one so there I win!"you know it's all bad because if it was good you'd post one so there I win!
>>24697500>Poetry needs to have something.Why? "It does because it does" isn't an argument. "It needs to distinguish itself from prose" looks like an argument, but that's just another way to say "it does because it does."
>>24697512>"It does because it does" isn't an argument.What about "I AM THAT I AM"?
>>24697511>I quoted each line reddit style!Okay.
>>24697521Redditors don't use greentext arrows, shithead
>>24697512>Why does the word "water" need to be H2O? It needs to distinguish itself from other chemicals looks like an argument, but that's just another way to say "it does because it does."Because then poetry is nothing. Why does a story need words? Why does music need melody or rhythm? You don't make a clever point by redefining "poetry" to be "anything I consider artistic".
>>24697498Nta..but can you post please. I want to get into it.
>>24697527He's not going to post it because he knows it's all bad and he's just full of shit. He's just going to post a title and a link, but not the actual poem itself.
>>24697502>assonance, alliteration, euphony, motifComparing the master of free verse to the vast majority of boring contemporary poets is a little silly, no?Robinson Jeffers is interesting because he uses long, rough lines of verse that mimic environment. Almost as if the lines themselves are a stenciled outline of the landscape he’s trying to evoke. Free verse is only compelling if there’s a purpose behind it: are you doing free verse because your exacting vision requires it? Or is it just out of laziness? Whitman had vision. Jeffers had vision. But the vast majority of these modern “poets” seem to lack it….and I don’t fault OP or anyone else for being disdainful of that.
>>24697523>why does water need to be h2o>why does a story need words>why does music need melody or rhythmAnd why are these apt analogies for poetry? Again, this isn't an argument. You're just forcefully asserting that poetry needs rhyme/meter or it's not poetry because... because... it just does okay!>>24697532Very predictable response>>24697544Love Jeffers, good pick. My point with the Whitman comparison wasn't to say that Whitman was equivalent to the majority of contemporary poets, but to say that Whitman provides a compelling (imo, knockdown) counterexample to the idea that poetry must have meter/rhyme. Assonance, alliteration, euphony, motif, etc are great. You can have them without meter and without rhyme, like Whitman.
>>24697563>Very predictable responseYou predicted it because you know I'm right
>>24697544Please explain like i am a retard (I am) but how is this different to prose?
>>24697527Robert Hass, John Burnside or Gertrud Schnackenburg are great.But one day I hope to approach life with the same confidence certain /lit/ posters have when talking about books they haven’t read
>>24697578>Doesn't post the poems themselvesYep . . . he's full of shit.
>>24697578>complains that /lit/ doesn't read>doesn't post the poems for /lit/ to readkill yourself
>hehehe you have to type out long poems verbatim for my delectation faggot
>>24697563>And why are these apt analogies for poetry? Again, this isn't an argument. You're just forcefully asserting that poetry needs rhyme/meter or it's not poetry because... because... it just does okay!You aren't clever when you say this. The fact that you don't understand the simple comparison is telling. Poetry is not an empty signifier. If you empty it out of all criteria, it is meaningless. "Water" as a word means H2O (the molecule) because we decided it should, and we continue to maintain that definition. Why must "water" mean H2O? "It does because it does." We could redefine it at any moment, as any milk, as alcohol, as any beverage, as poetry is being redefined now. The underlying idea still exists, independently of the word.You are again making the same argument that "water" doesn't need to mean H2O, or "Music" doesn't need to mean sounds with melody or rhythm—after all, why must it? Music could be visual. Who is to say I cannot call the Sun musical? Then music only loses its meaning. It gains nothing.You are an imbecile, and the way you interact with other anons in the thread only cements that fact.
>>24697585>can't copy and paste>can't screenshotYou're worth dogshit
>>24697578Thanks, kek.
>>24697527>>24697578>>24697593samefag, kys
>>24697591Why should I take a book from the shelf and photograph it for you? Are you locked in a room with only this thread for reading material? At some point you have to make more of an effort
>>24697595Retard.
>>24697580>>24697584Sorry anon :/ not me. but Hass is a great poet. Almost, though! Maybe next time
>>24697603I can edit images too.
>>24697597>contemporary poetry is great>example? not gonna provide oneYou're just full of shit
>>24697588More forceful assertions, still no argument. Why does poetry require rhyme and meter to be poetry? You're making a lot of noise about water and music, but we're not talking about water, and we're not talking about music. You're acting like the analogies are directly and immediately comparable, but you've given no reason why they are -- again, you're just making forceful assertions and hoping that if you make them forcefully enough nobody will question you on them. So I'll ask again: why does poetry require specifically rhyme and meter to be poetry? Why is that the criteria? Why are rhyme and meter the signifiers of poetry? This time please try to give a real answer, and not >it just DOES OKAY!!!for the thousandth time
>>24697612Meds
>>24697626kill yourself
>>24697620T-traditon? Nta and I dont really know.
If you want some decent contemporary poetry to check out, I'd recommend things like the following:>https://vallum.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/vallum-poem-of-the-week-taxi-drivers-therapy-by-yusuf-saadi/>https://newohioreview.org/2024/11/19/feeling-sorry-for-myself-after-failing-to-tame-a-unicorn/ (MDH is writing again)>Full collections like kevin varrone's "g-point almanac: passyunk lost"https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/149692/marcus-aurelius>https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/41433/dream-of-the-huntressThere's a hell of a lot to explore. These are just a couple off the top of my head that were at least passable. I'd recommend picking up an issue of "Poetry" or something similar. That way, you get an array of styles and subject matter to read through. 80% of the poems will be annoying or overtly political in nature, but the other 20% will actually be, in many cases, quite impressive.
>>24697635>posts linksPost the actual poem, if you're not chickenshit.
>>24697215Hahahaha I knew it was coming, any second now he’ll say immortal technique, hahaha
>>24697640>spoonfeed me!
>>24697643>Nooooooo you have to go to another site where you aren't able to reply or respond!Shut the fuck up, shitface
>>24697647Okay, I'll tell you exactly how to reply and respond. Open one of the links. Read the poem. Copy-paste the link into your reply comment to make clear you're talking about that specific poem. Then write a comment about the poem. You can screenshot some lines or a stanza if you want and add that to your comment, but you don't have to.
>>24697656>No, I won't screenshot the poem>But you should do itkill yourself, shitfucker
>>24697658>You can screenshot some lines or a stanza if you want and add that to your comment, but you don't have to.You're very upset and I don't know why. I said you didn't have to do that.
>>24697663Post the poem>noYou're full of shit
>>24697669You can highlight the link by clicking on the start of the link, holding down your mouse button, and then dragging your mouse across the link until the entire thing's highlighted. Then you can hit ctrl-c to copy it, and then you can open a new tab, click on the address bar, and hit ctrl-v on your keyboard. Once you hit enter it should take you right to the poem. I don't know why you're so angry about this -- is there anything I can make clearer for you?
>>24697527The tigerHe destroyed his cageYesYESThe tiger is out
>>24697675>is there anything I can make clearer for you?Yeah. Why don't you just do what you're telling me to do? It's because you're full of shit.
>>24697570You aren’t a retard, Jeffers is pushing it. Prose is usually designed to tell a story, while poetry is designed to evoke very specific emotions. The line gets blurry when prose utilizes poetic aspects and poetry utilizes narrative aspects, but these ultimate goals are still distinct.Even if I place line breaks in this post, the meaning is still clear: I’m trying to convey information, not create an emotional sensation. But when Jeffers describes meeting an eagle, that narrative is not nearly as important as the emotions he seeks to convey. There is intention with every image, and even the syllabic feet create a sort of loose meter, less formalized groupings of analyst, iambic, trochee. Because nature is not formulaic: mountain ridges aren’t smooth polygons, there is a rugged disparate nature to their texture. Yet there is still structure, a rough cohesiveness that Jeffers still notices and appreciates. His work is an attempt to recreate that natural world through words, the rawness and majesty of it all. Obviously, you could remove the line breaks and you’ll get something that could conceivably be prose. But because Jeffers’ goal is to play with synesthetic language to evoke emotions, utilizing specific imagery and “narratives” to trigger those associations, I would say that distinguishes his work as poetry instead of prose.
>>24697683>Prose is usually designed to tell a story, while poetry is designed to evoke very specific emotions.>implying poetry can't tell a story
>>24697679>you need to spoonfeed me because... because... YOU JUST HAVE TO OKAY
>>24697686>contemporary poetry is great>example? not gonna provide oneYou are full of shit
>>24697688This anon >>24697635 gave you five examples, four of which are direct links to specific poems you can read for free.
>>24697693>linksPost the actual poems, dipshit
>>24697683*anapest, iambic, trochee
>>24697697anapest and trochee are nouns, while iambic is an adjective, so it should be>anapest, iamb, trocheeor>anapestic, iambic, trochaic
>>24697683Hm thanks, I dont know much about poetry. Wish to get into it and I guess asking around on this board, I tend to piss people off but genuinely thanks. Ill add these guys to my list. Take care. :)
>>24697685I already mentioned in that post that poetry can contain narrative elements. Obviously the Iliad and other epics are poetic, but this is because they balance telling a story with evoking specific emotions through very specific imagery that wouldn’t be typical in prose.
>>24697696>four of which are direct links to specific poems you can read for free.>>24697656>I'll tell you exactly how to reply and respond. Open one of the links. Read the poem. Copy-paste the link into your reply comment to make clear you're talking about that specific poem. Then write a comment about the poem. You can screenshot some lines or a stanza if you want and add that to your comment, but you don't have to.>>24697675>You can highlight the link by clicking on the start of the link, holding down your mouse button, and then dragging your mouse across the link until the entire thing's highlighted. Then you can hit ctrl-c to copy it, and then you can open a new tab, click on the address bar, and hit ctrl-v on your keyboard. Once you hit enter it should take you right to the poem.
>>24697716>there's so many great poems!>no, I won't post onesmells like bullshit
>>24697620You are literally an imbecile. You are precisely the target demographic for the contemporary "poetry" market, by the way. Chase the reply chain up to the top, right now, all the way to OP's post. Where, even once, did I say all poems must have rhyme and must have meter?I suppose I have to be your kindergarten teacher.>You're making a lot of noise about water and music, but we're not talking about water, and we're not talking about music. You're acting like the analogies are directly and immediately comparable, but you've given no reason why they areLet me make it simple for you: If poetry has nothing unique to it and exists purely as a descriptive term (i.e., beautiful) then the word poetry has no meaning besides>I think it's poetical."Soda" typically refers to>a beverage consisting of soda water, flavoring, and a sweet syrup.But why though? Why should it? Why not, for instance, declare that soda can be "soda" without soda water? When a beverage like Coca-Cola sits for a while, the gaseous carbon dioxide escapes into the air, leaving an uncarbonated flavored syrup, and people would still call this a can of soda. Indeed, even I would argue that this is still a "soda". Better still, let's say you have sweetened, carbonated water without flavoring. Again, this is a soda. And what about if you were to have flavored, carbonated, yet unsweetened soda? Lots of people enjoy it and still consider it a soda. Each of these elements can be removed or bent without necessarily removing the quality of being soda.Now what if I had you a glass of unflavored, unsweetened, uncarbonated H2O? Can you guess what it is? To the contemporary "poet", it's "poetry". The word "soda" has a meaning, and it is not empty as a signifier. Soda can have orange juice, or alcohol, or even milk and still remain soda. These are all flavorings and renditions of soda to make it different, interesting, or to suit the particular market. But for "soda" to be a word, it must have some underlying meaning.You are not clever when you redefine a word to mean "nothing". You are as clever as a kindergartener that says>Why tho>Why tho>Why tho>Why thoWhen asking why a definition means some such X. The fact that you are emboldened to act like a toddler and an imbecile is because you and your contemporary "poetry" enjoyers and "poets" are likewise imbeciles and toddlers.As I said here >>24697500 poetry needs to have something. These are like the elements of a "soda." I quoted, specifically, a free verse author and alliterative. The discussion, now and up to OP's post, has been that contemporary poetry is bad, and often not poetry.You are so hung up on "forceful assertions" because you're too imbecilic to understand them. You misread my posts and mixed them up with another anon as well, out of your paranoia and retardation. Pathetic.
>>24697620>>24697722Actually it's funny, because of just how closely you do match the contemporary liberal arts student with no understanding of art or poetry at all, yet an obscene amount of pedestrian and ignorant views on it. You are very opinionatedly asking>WHY DOES A WORD MEAN SOMETHING HUH?>WHY CAN'T BED MEAN WALL?>WHY CAN'T SPOON MEAN FORK?Just the kind of stuff that an undergrad would feel like an intellectual for.
>>24696866>you don't pay tax on artlol wut.
>>24697722I'm not getting through to you. Let's go step-by-step.>If poetry has nothing unique to it and exists purely as a descriptive term (i.e., beautiful) then the word poetry has no meaning besidesYou're begging the question here. You're saying that poetry necessarily involves meter and rhyme, because if it doesn't involve those things, it's a meaningless term. And why would it be meaningless? Because poetry must have meter and rhyme. And why must it? Because the word "poetry" would be meaningless otherwise. Surely you see this is circular.>analogies to different drinksOnce again, you're drawing an analogy and then acting as if it's self-evident that the analogy directly applies to our poetry discussion. I understand what you're trying to say -- the word "soda" refers to a drink with several different qualities, and if a drink doesn't have these qualities, then it's not soda -- but I don't think it's self-evident that this is comparable to poetry. It's just another way to say the circular argument above. Why must soda (poetry) be carbonated (rhyme)? Because otherwise the term soda (poetry) is meaningless. Why would the term soda (poetry) be meaningless? Because soda (poetry) must be carbonated (rhyme). Why must soda (poetry) be carbonated (rhyme)? Because it wouldn't be soda (poetry) if it wasn't. >seething about contemporary poetryOkay, let me try a different tack. Is Whitman's Song of Myself a poem? Is TS Eliot's "Four Quartets" a poem? Neither of those works has a regular meter or a regular rhyme scheme. Are Rimbaud's "Illuminations" poems?
i ama womanmen raperape meyou
>>24697770>You're begging the question here.I kind of feel bad for you. You don't really understand the problem or poetry, and now your only task is to try to "win" without knowing what you're talking about. It's reminiscient of a certain poster's quote:>But one day I hope to approach life with the same confidence certain /lit/ posters have when talking about books they haven’t reador>We both know you haven't read a poem since high school. We both know you've never seriously read contemporary poetry, you've seen other imageboard anons post screenshots of Rupi Kaur poems. You think that this is representative of contemporary poetry. You think this because you're a retarded pseud who cares more about being seen as intelligent and learned than you care about reading good literature. I'd post some good contemporary work, but I know all you'll do is reflexively say it's shit and then strut around like you've proved something.>You're begging the question here. You're saying that red (visible color) necessarily involves a wavelength of approximately 625–750 nanometres, because if it doesn't involve those things, it's a meaningless term. And why would it be meaningless? Because red must have a wavelength of approximately 625–750. And why must it? Because the word "red" would be meaningless otherwise. Surely you see this is circular.You are so close, but for people if your IQ so, so far away. It's also not subtle that you used ChatGPT. Not that it makes your argument any better or worse, but it's another pathetic display.
>>24697807They're very simple questions. Is Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself" a poem? Is TS Eliot's "Four Quartets" a poem? >color analogy...anon, do you think color is an objective quality inherent to objects themselves and not a perceptual phenomena that arises in the viewer? Come on now. Are you seriously one of those tedious people who thinks that philosophical arguments can be stopped in their tracks by referencing the nearest dictionary?
>>24695982>I'm a golem who can't articulate his thoughts
>>24697807>chatGPT(Also I wasn't going to comment on this but I know if I don't you'll sperg out; you think I used chatGPT because I used "--", but if you knew anything about chatGPT, you'll know that it uses "—". I know what you're going to try to say in response, so please spare yourself the embarrassment of pretending like I replaced "—" with "--".)
>>24696293Poetry is spoken, songs are sung. There's a universe of difference between them.
>>24697822>anon, do you think color is an objective quality inherent to objects themselves and not a perceptual phenomena that arises in the viewer?Oh my God you're so close. This is like watching a retard slam the square peg just at the brink of the square hole for the past two hours.Now ask yourself why bother with definitions of anything if almost every word and concept, from the colors to "soda" to poetry hinge on the way we perceive these concepts.>>24697829No, it wasn't the em-dash. Besides this imbecile, >>24696293 I was the first anon in this thread to use an em-dash. We don't really look for em-dashes when looking for LLM plagiarism.
>>24697831>For all good poets, epic as well as lyric, compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired and possessed. And as the Corybantian revellers when they dance are not in their right mind, so the lyric poets are not in their right mind when they are composing their beautiful strains: but when falling under the power of music and metre they are inspired and possessed; like Bacchic maidens who draw milk and honey from the rivers when they are under the influence of Dionysus but not when they are in their right mind. And the soul of the lyric poet does the same, as they themselves say; for they tell us that they bring songs from honeyed fountains, culling them out of the gardens and dells of the Muses; they, like the bees, winging their way from flower to flower. And this is true. For the poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and the mind is no longer in him: when he has not attained to this state, he is powerless and is unable to utter his oracles. Many are the noble words in which poets speak concerning the actions of men; but like yourself when speaking about Homer, they do not speak of them by any rules of art: they are simply inspired to utter that to which the Muse impels them, and that only; and when inspired, one of them will make dithyrambs, another hymns of praise, another choral strains, another epic or iambic verses—and he who is good at one is not good at any other kind of verse: for not by art does the poet sing, but by power divine.
>>24697844You've avoided answering my questions twice now. I'll ask them a third time. Is Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself" a poem? Is TS Eliot's "Four Quartets" a poem?>color, definitionsYou seem very confused about this. This might help: >https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/#PriSimObjVieCol>hinge on the way we perceive those conceptsI'm not sure what point you think you're making here. I'm assuming your point goes something like this: definitions come from how we perceive things. We perceive poetry to be a certain way (ie, with meter and rhyme), so that's what it is. Why do we perceive it to be that way? Because that's the way it is. Why is that the way it is? Because without meter and rhyme, it's not poetry. Why wouldn't it be poetry? Because it needs meter and rhyme. Why does it need meter and rhyme? Because that's how we perceive it. And around and around and around we go. But this just sounds like the same circular argument again, so I don't think I'm understanding you right
>>24697871>You seem very confused about this. This might help:The irony of being an imbecile and linking pages you neither read nor understood to refute a point that wasn't made.>But one day I hope to approach life with the same confidence certain /lit/ posters have when talking about books they haven’t read>so I don't think I'm understanding you rightYes, clearly. Poetry doesn't have to be defined as meter or rhythm or "art" or expression or any other quality. Just as much as the definition that poetry is an 'expression of the imagination', the definition is arbitrary. It is so, because we say it is so. Any definition you give of poetry will not be less circular, no matter how general. This is the nature of the problem.OP's topic is introducing a critique of contemporary poetry. You can ask>Why, why, why does poetry need X!But the same can be said for your own definitions. When you yourself call something poetry, you define it by some Y quality that I do not. This is the root of your typical, undergrad, faux-intellectual viewpoint; There is no value in critiquing a definition that you don't like if you don't have a definition at all, worse when you hold that the definition is meaningless. Can you call my post poetry?>The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with metre no less than without it. The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history:Versified or prose, my post is poetry. For the typical pseud (like you) the distinction or definition is irrelevant.>Ah, but it must be an expression of X. After all, that's the distinction Aristotle makes ...Why? The 'why' is pointless. The real phenomenon of metrical lines is cross cultural and ancient, and terms for verse poetry have been established all across the world independently. The appreciation of rhythm is linked to a direct, neuralogical phenomenon. Just like there is a real underlying reality by which the subjective definition of a color like "red" is made, there is an underlying cognitive process that the subjective definition of poetry by which the definition is made. In the one case (as in yours) merely anything at all that one might find "expressive" and in the other something more precise.
>>24698027>there is an underlying cognitive process that the subjective definition of poetry by which the definition is made. there is an underlying cognitive process to poetry by which the definition is made.*
>>24698027>>24698045This is a lot of pseudo-intellectual sperging, anon. I think you began to realize that you weren't making a lot of sense, felt embarrassed, and now you're trying to construct some weird post-hoc justification for your ideas cobbled together from Aristotelian fragments. Which is cool and all, but it doesn't help you whatsoever, because he's distinguishing poetry from history based on content in that fragment, not the form. >refute a point that wasn't madeI didn't know what point you were making in that post. This, here, is the first time you've offered an actual point that wasn't circular. It's not a good point, but it's something. >poetry doesn't have to be defined as... any qualityThen why are we fighting? (This directly contradicts what you were saying in >>24697722 and >>24697588, but sure, I'll forget those posts exist for a moment.)>any definition will be circular, this is the nature of the problemRight, yes. Surely you understand that this means defining poetry by things inherent to it (such as meter, or rhyme, or rhythm, or any other quality) is a fool's errand. I think you do understand this. Which is why >The real phenomenon of metrical lines is cross cultural and ancient, and terms for verse poetry have been established all across the world independently.gives me whiplash, because you're trying to have it both ways. Either the definition of poetry is an arbitrary, agreed-upon social construct, or it has a definite neurological basis. Which is it? If it's the first, then again, why are we fighting? Your original complaint loses all force, can't simultaneously argue that all definitions are circular and meaningless and also argue that contemporary poets are somehow violating the definition of real poetry. If it's the second, and it's based on something definite and neurological, then many, many things that I'm guessing you wouldn't call poetry suddenly become poetry -- (can I use an emdash? is that allowed?) like an auctioneer's spreads, rhythmic prose, the most braindead of rap lyrics, etc. You're trying to weasel out of this by claiming that there's a definite ground to the subjective definition, but that doesn't actually free you, it's just grounding poetry in the neurological definition.>still won't answerFourth time; is Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself" a poem? Is TS Eliot's "Four Quartets" a poem? Why won't you answer this?
>>24696682And what do you think is the real reason why it's detrimental?
>>24696821I'd be honestly curious to see what you'd consider good contemporary poetry.
>>24697079I already said above: poetry still exists, it's just published in the form of sound recordings set to music rather than print text.
>>24697696>I'll send dozens of replies but I won't simply just click a link instead!What a weird hill to die on
>>24697831What about the fact that e.g. Homer was originally sung to accompaniment on a lyre?
>>24698332He's going to post titles and links, but he's not going to post the actual poems.
>>24698350>I'll say there are lots of great contemporary poems but I won't simply just post one!Full of shit
>>24698375...why does that matter?
>>24698383>Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?He knows the poems are shit. That's why he doesn't want to display them openly. If they were good, he'd post them.
>>24698409It's too inconvenient for you to click a link?
>>24695982anyone with this retarded attitude should listen to how ponderously e.e. cummings recited his own poetry. having a tantrum about formatting is not the elite move you think it is.
>>24698409You're cleary just scared that you'll have to form your own opinion rather than relying on some smarter anon
>>24698152Every time I come back it's more imbecilic tripe from a typical /lit/ pseud.>I think you began to realize that you weren't making a lot of sense, felt embarrassed, and now you're trying to construct some weird post-hoc justification for your ideas cobbled together from Aristotelian fragments.Re-read the comment chain. What did I say here: >>24697500>Poetry needs to have something. Most anons that hate on poems without rhyme and meter are criticizing the "poetic" anarchy of modern "poetry". They'd be okay with Beowulf or Ezra Pound (mentioned in a wiki quote earlier) as in pic related. Essentially all contemporary poetry is genuine garbage, but obviously that doesn't negate the few individual examples of better-than-average you'll be able to find in the wild. Invariably, these "contemporary poets" are at their best when they are at their least "contemporary".You projecting your own insecurities, consistently misreading, and then replying with something completely irrelevant. Why? Here's an example:>because he's distinguishing poetry from history based on content in that fragment, not the form. Yes, which is exactly why I add:>Ah, but it must be an expression of X. After all, that's the distinction Aristotle makes ...And the irony of you missing it, reading exactly what I said, and still misunderstanding it is funny. Aristotle is included as an example of rhetoric. Aristotle makes a definition (to reflect myself) which I question as a pointless distinction—in this case, the expression of the universal. I take the place of you in the argument precisely to highlight the pointlessness of this. I could only guess that you pushed it through ChatGPT without context to be unable to understand such a simple context, but it seems you may be a more traditional imbecile.>Then why are we fighting? (This directly contradicts what you were saying in >>24697722 >>24697588 but sure, I'll forget those posts exist for a moment.)It's a bit amazing to speak with true down-and-out imbeciles. Let me make it more simple:>1. One man say Dark is when See-Little>2. Imbecile say Dark is when No-Can-See>3. Both know word-Dark is Arbitrary>4. Man argue Definition See-Little not Good Enough>5. Word Dark and BlackDark be made, both Describe different idea>6. Man says Dark describe See-Little, know See-Little not intrinsic property of Dark>7. Man Know Dark still Arbitrary, but think More-Good call Word Better.>8. Imbecile ask Why Dark need Means See-little, say See-Little arbitrary>9. Man tell Him, "No-Can-See also arbitrary".>10. Imbecile say Man define Dark by property of Dark, See-Littleness>11. Man say Imbecile is an ImbecileWe are arguing because the topic of OP's post is that contemporary poetry is garbage. I am questioning basing poetry purely on expression and language as useful, the same way you question basing it on other things.
>>24698413>Just go to this other site bro, where you can't reply or make comments!you're just chickenshit of us saying the poems suck
>>24698152>>24698424>Either the definition of poetry is an arbitrary, agreed-upon social construct, or it has a definite neurological basis.This is another example, again you must be using ChatGPT because no normal literate human being could fail to understand the previous comparison:>Poetry is a made up concept. The word poetry is tied to certain qualities that have a physical basis, for example the tendency of the human mind to enjoy rhythm, consonance, etc. The word poetry is defined by various concepts, but the consistent idea of what composes the word "poetry" is arbitrary. Why not music without words? Why not colors? Why meter, why sound, why meaning? What about the blind?>Red is a made up concept. The word red is tied to certain qualities that have a physical basis, for example the tendency of the human mind to perceive a "color" between the wavelengths of approximately 625–750 nanometers, but the consistent idea of what composes the word "red" is arbitrary. Why not 624-751 nanometers? Why not 623-701 nanometers? What about the colorblind?>Surely you understand that this means defining poetry by things inherent to it (such as meter, or rhyme, or rhythm, or any other quality) is a fool's errand. I think you do understand thisYou still have no reading comprehension. How is meter, rhyme, etc., inherent to poetry? Without these things, it has no definition. Why would you describe Whitman's works as poetry? Don't tell me self-expression or intent or other tripe. These are no less circular than any other definition. The fool's errand is to request a non-circular definition where you yourself do not offer one, nor do you have any objective definition at all.Read the posts you yourself try to gotcha—here, for instance: >>24697722I'm assuming you believe I think there is some essential, ideal Soda by which all Sodas partake of. Why does soda mean carbonated, flavored syrup? Because we say so. It doesn't have to be defined as such, in the same way that you can simply alter its meaning in a dictionary to be any beverage consumed for pleasure rather than hydration alone.Likewise, if I were to buy a soda and find it pure H2O, I would say "this isn't soda.">But why?you ask.>Because soda has fizz and flavor and stuff.>Who says?>Because that is what it is.>What a circular definition. Why does soda need flavor, fizz, and...So on and so forth. Soda only means such properties because we define it as such. I am saying my definition of soda requires, at minimum, flavor and carbonation. I'm not saying that there is an objective primordial Soda upon which we rest our definition of soda. Ignoramus.
>>24698429I'm not even that anon but you know you can respond to the post in which he linked it with your opinion on the poem? I can't help but feel like you're playing dumb.
>>24698422>form your own opinionI think contemporary poetry stinks>NOOOO NOT LIKE THATCounterexamples?>JUST TRUST ME BROLiterally, all you have to do to change my mind is post a good contemporary poem. But you won't because you know you're full of shit.
Man of course you fat nerds are arguing about soda. Read the Greeks you telos-tubbies!
>>24698438Well well well>>24698429>usThere it is kek. Now beat it dilettante
>>24698152>Fourth time; is Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself" a poem? Is TS Eliot's "Four Quartets" a poem? Why won't you answer this?Marvel. What do I say here >>24697500I'm sure you'll notice interesting quirks. The first of which, evidently, is not the one where you conjure up a straw man three replies later:>>24697512 (1)>>24697523 (2)>>24697563 (3) <->You're just forcefully asserting that poetry needs rhyme/meter or it's not poetry because...Try to determine where it was that I mentioned rhyme or meter, by the way. Regardless, of what you think this argument is about, you clearly have the memory of a goldfish and the intellectual capacity of a braindead Somali crack baby. I'm guessing you're going to piss yourself begging for answers like you claim this anon is doing: >>24697669Most of your posts were driven by your own insecurity, projection, paranoia, and lack of any relevant knowledge on the topic. Usually when someone is this angry and misinformed, they cannot learn any better.
>>24698449>you used the word 'us' And what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Eat shit.
>>24698436What anon is doing is obvious. He's taking the piss out of >>24697635 while also making his own statment.>You can't explain why it's good. You won't even post it. Why should I offer you an explanation if you offer nothing at all?Something contemporary-tard can't and won't do.
>>24698507>>24698467>cowardly samefag will post itt for 7 hours but not take 5 seconds to click on a link because he'll be exposed as a pseud if he has to make his own opinionLol I was just stopping in bye now
>>24698518Uh huh. Not the anon but I'll chip in and call you chickenshit too.
Poetry then>But as they left the dark’ning heath,>More desperate grew the strife of death.>The English shafts in volleys hailed,>In headlong charge their horse assailed;>Front, flank, and rear, the squadrons sweep>To break the Scottish circle deep,>That fought around their king.>But yet, though thick the shafts as snow,>Though charging knights like whirlwinds go,>Though billmen ply the ghastly blow,>Unbroken was the ring;>The stubborn spearmen still made good>Their dark impenetrable wood,>Each stepping where his comrade stood,>The instant that he fell.>No thought was there of dastard flight;>Linked in the serried phalanx tight,>Groom fought like noble, squire like knight,>As fearlessly and well;>Till utter darkness closed her wing>O’er their thin host and wounded king.>Then skilful Surrey’s sage commands>Led back from strife his shattered bands;>And from the charge they drew,>As mountain-waves, from wasted lands,>Sweep back to ocean blue.Poetry now>and here you are living>despite it allwhere did it all go so wrong?
>>24698429>At first it was sublime, all her medieval tapestry qualities,>her plangent, gracile profile against a field>of heraldic green, the silvery trill of her neighs. My life>has purpose now, so I told myself happily>shoveling fodder and greasing the tackle. An obligation>to myth and legend, so I told myself, >is worth the hassle. So I showered and shaved every day, >expelled vulgarity and embraced the necessity>for an orderly household. And yet she still craps the halls,>and crap is crap even when it shimmers like the rainbows>on an oil slick and smells an awful lot>like butterscotch candy. She’s moody! And an incurable>insomniac keeping me awake gobbling stardust and>moonbeams in the middle of the night, her dainty hooves>clip-clop-clip-clopping across the kitchen tiles. >She leaves the refrigerator door open half the time, uses up>the ice cubes. Every day it’s something, poking>her narwhal horn through the porch screen or another divot>gouged out of the drywall. Come the weekend,>she inevitably lays her head in the laps of my lady visitors, >pestering them to scratch her ears and >pat her dazzling pure white withers while she knocks over>beer cans and ashtrays. Some Knight Errant>or another is always pounding on the front door demanding>proof of her existence, as if I’m the Fairytale Ogre>keeping her locked away. Ha! She hides the whole time>in her bedroom like a teenager, ear pressed>against the door. Everything I say mortifies her. She plays>the same sad Joni Mitchell song over and over>on her little portable record player and mopes at suppertime>and smudges eyeliner all over the vanity. And each morning>she reproaches me over waffles with her doleful >little nickers, and I still have no idea how I got this so wrong.Behold! Here's one of the "poems" he linked. Banal doggerel with clumsy wordplay or decent poetry?
Whenever you find a topic where a single "but y tho" can make people have a seizure with indignant fury, or break out the classic "I'm going to act like you don't deserve a real answer for not getting it to begin with", you know you're on the right path to unmasking some bullshit.
>>24698553It's not as good as Hamlet, Don Quixote, The Divine Comedy, The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Argonautica, Works and Days, The Theogeny, Virgil's Eclogues and Georgics, The Aeneid, Metamorphoses, Horace's Odes, Satires, and Epistles, Juvenal's Satires, On the Nature of Things, Plato's Dialogues, the Works of Aristotle, Gargantua and Pantagruel, Faust, the Sorrows of Young Werther, Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship, Schiller's Robbers, Moby-Dick, Leaves of Grass, Dickinson's poetry, The Scarlet Letter, Little Women, Alice in Wonderland, The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Oliver Twist, A Christmas Carol, Great Expectation, A Tale of Two Cities, the Pickwick Papers, Hard Times, Middlemarch, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, Emma, Persuasion, Northanger Abbery, Doctor Faustus, King Lear, Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2, As You Like It, Othello, Twelfth Night, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, Richard II, Richard III, Henry V, The Alchemist, Oedipus Rex, Prometheus Bound, Summa Theologica, Augustine's Confessions, The City of God, The Golden Ass, The Satyricon, The Golden Legend, Beowulf, Aesop's Fables, Reynard the Fox, Dao De Jing, The Analects, the Shijing, the 300 Tang Poems, the Hyakkunin Ishu, The Tale of Genji, The Tale of the Heike, Journey to the West, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Outlaws of the Marsh, A Dream of Red Mansions, Kokoro, I Am a Cat, Botchan, The Bhagavad Gita, The Ramayana, The Shahnameh, The Conference of the Birds, The Koran, The Bible, The Masnavi, The Rubaiyat of Mar Khayyam, The Rape of the Lock, The Dunciad, the Vanity of Human Wishes, An Essay on Criticism, An Essay on Man, Tristram Shandy, Gulliver's Travels, A Tale of the Tub, Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, Samson Argonistes, The Faerie Queene, The Canterbury Tales, Troilus and Cressid, The Consolation of Philosophy, Leviathan, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgement, The Science of Logic, The World as Will and Representation, Beyond Good and Evil, Thus Spake Zarathustra, The Birth of Tragedy, Ulysses, Finnegans Wake, Dubliners, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Frankenstein, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Treasure Island, The Importance of Being Earnest, Around the World in Eighty Days, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, The Waste Land, the Cantos, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, Resurrection, Crime and Punishment, Notes from the Underground, The Gambler, The Double, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, Demons, Fathers and Sons, Dead Souls, Eugene Onegin, Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, The Sun Also Rises, A Farewell to Arms, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Old Man and the Sea, The Sound and the Fury, Absalom, Absalom!, As I Lay Dying, To the Lighthouse, Mrs Dalloway, The Catcher in the Rye, Gravity's Rainbow, Infinite Jest, Mason and Dixon, or the Anatomy of Melancholy.
>>24698424>>24698430>>24698450>I'm not upset! You're upset! You're... you're like... you're insecure and shit! and you're upset and shit! And you're projecting and shit! And you're Right, yeah.>I'm talking like a caveman now!Okay? >I'm assuming you believe I think there is some essential, ideal Soda by which all Sodas partake of. I don't think this, no. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between disagreement and misunderstanding. I'm not really sure how to be more clear with you, so I'm not sure how to rectify this. >Why does soda mean carbonated, flavored syrup? Because we say so. It doesn't have to be defined as such, in the same way that you can simply alter its meaning in a dictionary to be any beverage consumed for pleasure rather than hydration alone... my def of soda requires, at minimum, flavor and carbonationAnd why does it require "flavor and carbonation?" Because... uh... neurology... uh... cross-cultural metrical patterns... uh... that thing where people, you know, uh... they like rhythm... so uh... contemporary poetry bad everything circular stop asking me hard questions okayI will now be as clear and direct as I possibly can so you calm down a little bit: What goes into the word "poetry" is arbitrary, yes. We agree there. Where we differ is that you think at the most basic level "poetry" refers to something definite, real, actual, certain. Poetry that strays from that definite, real, actual, certain thing is bad, and possibly not even poetry. I don't think "poetry" refers to such a thing at base, and I don't think you've given me good reasons to think it does -- you've just asserted that well, that thing simply must exist, because without it the word would be utterly meaningless. When I press you on what this definite, real, actual, certain thing is, you sputter something about rhythm and start talking about colors, or sodas, or cavemen. When I press you on why that definite/real/certain/actual thing must exist, you start talking about colors and sodas again, and then repeat that it must exist. I think you're trying to say that whatever "it" is, it doesn't matter, what matters is that when we talk about things in the world, we are all using arbitrarily constructed definitions that at base point toward something about the things themselves... but you're also trying to say that [sputtering something about rhythm] is that real, definite, actual, certain thing. You try to root this in neurology and cultural patterns and I think you can tell it's shaky, so you go back to talking about colors and sodas. I will now summarize that paragraph as much as I possibly can to get at the focal point of our disagreement: you think, at the end of the day, at the root, "poetry" refers to something real. I don't think this. This makes you very, very upset.
>>24698430>>24698638>How is meter, rhyme, etc., inherent to poetry? Without these things, it has no definition. You're not even saying "words mean things," you're saying "words refer to things," which I don't think was ever in doubt.>Why would you describe Whitman's works as poetry? Don't tell me self-expression or intent or other tripe. Because other people call them poetry. This is the only definition that doesn't disintegrate when pressure is applied. Yes, that means whatever cartoony example you're thinking of is poetry, or would be poetry if everyone started calling it such. >These are no less circular than any other definition. Agreed, yes. You are going to read this and begin to get very, very upset again. Take a deep breath and make sure you properly understood our exchange before you reply with something something hypocrisy. >The fool's errand is to request a non-circular definition where you yourself do not offer one, nor do you have any objective definition at all.I don't think an objective definition is possible in any sense beyond "poetry is what people say is poetry." Once again, take a few deep breaths before you reply. Let me put our exchange another way:>most contemporary poetry BAD>why? because it doesn't have meter and rhythm?>because the word poetry refers to a real thing that has to do with... uh... rhythmic qualities of various kinds... uh... Yeah.>why does it refer to that and not something else?>because it just does okay. because all things ultimately are arbitrary okay>right, got that, but why that and not something else>because that's how language works>I'm talking about poetry specifically>because it just does okay. that's how language works. all things are ultimately arbitrary, but the arbitrariness refers to something real, a shared common trait, however you want to phrase it>okay, what is that thing in poetry. that thing being referred to, what is it in poetry>[mumbles something about the brain and rhythm]>I'm still not following why it's that and not something else>You're so fucking stupid. You're such a retard. You're such a retarded stupid fuck. Fucking imbecile >you see how this doesn't make sense as an aesthetic criteria right>*ear-splitting screeching noises*
>>24698638>Right, yeah.You received all refutations in the post.>>I'm talking like a caveman now>Okay?I'm talking to a cave man. When in Rome,>Where we differ is that you think at the most basic level "poetry" refers to something definite, real, actual, certain.No, I do not.>Poetry that strays from that definite, real, actual, certain thing is bad, and possibly not even poetry.No, I do not.>you think, at the end of the day, at the root, "poetry" refers to something real.Also wrong. Again, you're an imbecile.I have consistently maintained that poetry is not objective. We are responding to OP's thread and his critique of contemporary poetry. You say:>>24696821That there is contemporary poetry that is good. Anon asks you to post it, to which you reply: >>24697457>Again, none of you know what you're talking about when you talk about poetry, and you will all reflexively start screeching retarded faggotry about MUH RHYME and MUH METER, so I won'tWhich is where my post comes in: >>24697500I do not make a rigid definition of poetry as I see it, but if you want mine, capital-P Poetry must be rigidly structured, with formulaic and intentional meter, and must express deep emotions through skillful wordplay, sound, and careful imagery. My favorite essay on art is Shelley's, who writes>Poetry turns all things to loveliness; it exalts the beauty of that which is most beautiful, and it adds beauty to that which is most deformed; it marries exultation and horror, grief and pleasure, eternity and change; it subdues to union under its light yoke, all irreconcilable things. It transmutes all that it touches, and every form moving within the radiance of its presence is changed by wondrous sympathy to an incarnation of the spirit which it breathes: its secret alchemy turns to potable gold the poisonous waters which flow from death through life; it strips the veil of familiarity from the world, and lays bare the naked and sleeping beauty, which is the spirit of its forms.But even still, it's a "vain" enterprise to objectively measure qualities like imagery, wordplay, sound, or "intentional meter." I do enjoy sudden and unexpected shifts in meter from time to time, and you can often tell when it is skillfully done. This doesn't mean everyone will like it, and that's the nature of any kind if pleasurable activity. Now, before I get to the next part: My definition and what I think about poetry does not resemble Shelley's. I find his views beautiful, not that I necessarily agree on every front:
>>24698638>An observation of the regular mode of the recurrence of harmony in the language of poetical minds, together with its relation to music, produced metre, or a certain system of traditional forms of harmony and language. Yet it is by no means essential that a poet should accommodate his language to this traditional form, so that the harmony, which is its spirit, be observed. The practice is indeed convenient and popular, and to be preferred, especially in such composition as includes much action: but every great poet must inevitably innovate upon the example of his predecessors in the exact structure of his peculiar versification. The distinction between poets and prose writers is a vulgar error.Ultimately people like you and I use the term poetry differently, but I entertain both. What one calls "poetry" can instead be a simple linguistic art, much like a doodle or drawing. Again, making an objectively rigorous distinction between all cases of a "drawing" and "Art" is vain, but the distinction can be made.You referenced Burnside earlier, who has written several pieces that I have liked and would colloquially call "poetry"—poetry in the sense that it is clearly meant to be poetry, but not according to "my" standards. The same can be said for Ezra Pound, who I have read extensively and enjoyed, yet I would never compare his (free verse) poetry to some of my favorites in Golding or Pope or Shakespeare of course. Again, by a certain standard of poetry.What standard you ask? The same idea that OP had in mind when he posted his thread, and several anons argue, and I myself make now; That the various things referred to as iambic, epic, or at times even free verse, can and should be put under the umbrella of "Poetry" and the others merely of "poetic qualities" or "poetry" simply.You keep saying I think that "whatever poetry is, is real." The mechanisms behind why we find certain things pleasing or displeasing most certainly are. I think mushrooms and celery are pleasing snacks, and I prefer them over something like a beef and bean burrito. I would not say that there is a rigid hierarchy in these foods, nor a particularly objective criteria through which their taste may be judged. However, clear hierarchies arise between various dishes combining spices, salts, and foods of various kinds. Plain rice is almost universally below that of rice with salt, meats, or vegetables. Even lower is that peppered with sterilized feces, although you will find some who would enjoy it (shit-eater that you are).(cont)
>>24698638>>24698677>>24698890>>24698893I would not then call this feces a delicatessen simply because someone finds it delicious, as you would:>Because other people call them poetry. This is the only definition that doesn't disintegrate when pressure is applied.This is what I mean by imbecilic and inartistic undergrads. These kinds of statements are vacuous and amount to patting yourself on the back because you can skirt the issue entirely. It isn't wise, it isn't clever, and it isn't deep to abandon all meaningful definition of poetry. It's the same as any teenager saying>like, you can't prove anything man, so like, you can't believe anything hehYes, but this is an utterly trivial statement.To you, "poetry" is an empty signifier. Your defense of it is meaningless, because your only definition of poetry is that you (and others) believe it to be poetry. In this case, all you are doing is trying (and failing) to engage in a rhetorical battle of convincing anons that poetry is nothing.To get back to the original point, NO anon here is under the illusion that petty imbeciles like you can't call everything poetry. You can be at peace knowing that other anons are smugly looking down at your inane doggerel >>24698553 because you already believe that it isn't poetry—again, poetry is literally nothing. You can be at peace knowing that other anons consider meter and rhythm to be part of poetry, because again, poetry is nothing.>I don't think an objective definition is possible in any sense beyond "poetry is what people say is poetry." Once again, take a few deep breaths before you reply.Again, you're an imbecile. Where did I try to establish an objective definition?Also, this is an imageboard. I'm assuming you think the anons calling you chickenshit and faggot were mad as well, when more than likely they were gooning to anime and alt-tabbing from time to time to take the piss. Calling anons a retarded nigger faggot is just part of the set of invectives. You trying to employ condenscending language to feel like you're in control only makes you look more like a pathetic chickenshit redditor. (Kindly, again, since you're a very sensitive redditor)All of your posts and you are still building up straw men because you have quite literally nothing to say. An all around blubbering retard that bumbled in from reddit.
>>24698677But before you can dribble and bloviate about nothing again, locking your eyes onto this:>You keep saying I think that "whatever poetry is, is real." The mechanisms behind why we find certain things pleasing or displeasing most certainly are.This is not a statement that poetry is an objectively measurable object. My definition of poetry is subjective. Poetry is not "real". I can use real phenomena in my definition, or simply cherry-pick them to justify a definition I already have. This does not in itself mean poetry is real. It's a justification for a particular consensus view that is not even close to uncommon.
Bump
>>24697161>>24697760https://www.citywealthmag.com/news/the-billion-dollar-art-vaults-secrets-of-freeports-revealed/Arguing with people like you feels like living in 2005 when people would laugh at conspiracy theorists and earnestly thought the system and our elites aren't corrupt to the core. its honestly mind boggling that people like you still exist and think any industry let alone art isn't going to be exploited for financial gain.
>>24696501Life's many mysteries...
an entire thread full of litcels who can't cope with the fact that modern poetry is garbage
>>24698921nta and idgaf about ur argument (didn’t read most of it) or contemporary poetry (don’t read it at all) but you sound like the most insufferable pretentious faggot who ever lived, just insane levels of projection emanating off ur replies when I skim them. Not even good pretentious, ur like a walking stereotype. I basically agree that contemporary poetry is bad and I think that other anon is somewhat retarded for defending contemporary poetry but ur such an unbearable fag that I feel compelled to disagree with you. very unpleasant person
>>24700423Oh my little heart, it's practically broken. If only anon liked me.>what is stronger>than the human heart>which shatters over and over>yet still lives
>>24700455im guessing im not the first person to tell you you’re not very self aware
>>24700579Your insults are hurting me badly. Yeah I'm a pretentious dickhead, and I'm also right (as you say yourself). If you have anything more to say other than>You're right but I disagree because... because you raped me!!1Then you can go ahead and say it. Need another Kaur?
>>24700615ok
>>24698326Overtly, it promotes values and morals that are lowly and abominable. Covertly it promotes mediocrity by being made without skill or talent.
>>24698900>I'm assuming you think the anons calling you chickenshit and faggot were mad as wellbecause nothing says “I’m not mad” like a reply so long you had to split it in 4 kek
>>24700193I read the new Fiona Benson collection and it was great. Much better than some victorian shit
>>24700797Post a screenshot of a Fiona Benson poem and do NOT post ANY LINKS at ALL or I WILL FUCKING EAT YOU
>>24700805Why are you so angry? You do ah… read books on this ah… literature forum? Why pretend that your only possibly source of reading material is screenshots posted on a Bhutanese embroidery pow-wow? Go to a library nigga.But I managed to find one anyway! She’s not public domain, because of the whole being alive thing, so obviously it’s harder to post.But anyway, I’ve read everything by Matthew Arnold, and I’ve read everything by Benson, Benson is better
>>24700843It's a joke from earlier in the thread, some other anon was having a fucking stroke because another anon posted links to poems instead of screenshots. Thank you for the poem btw I quite enjoyed it
>>24700797>>24700805>>24700843>>24700848Samefag
>>24696480You don't have to sell modern art to launder money, just open a JP Morgan Chase account and they'll do it for you
>>24700957Please don't embarrass yourself like this
>>24700983I can edit images too.
>>24701005Sorry <3 don’t get mad ok?
>>24700783Sir, we're in the literature board.
>>24701031>F12>Edit ElementsI know that trick too
>>24700843>I’ve read everything by Matthew ArnoldWhy you fucking lying?
>>24701056Meds
>>24701084>seething because his trick was revealedlmao
>>24701097What proof do you want
>>24701084>>24701097>>24701161why does it matter whether anons samefag? we're not redditors, the amount of posts that 'upvote' you doesn't matter. samefagging is only to assuage one's insecurities, but it has no effect otherwise.No need to derail a perfectly good thread.
>>24701161You can't prove you're not a samefag, because you are one.
>>24701168>perfectly good threadThis thread looked like it was getting somewhere until those two retards showed up. I don't even know who won that. They both sound retarded but one of them was just projecting the entire time which granted funny to glance at but Jesus those faggots need a hobby. I suggest reading
>>24701208>social commentary on rap>money laundering (visual art)>muh russians>getting somewhereKek
>>24701065all his poetry he obviously meant
>>24702380He didn't say just his poetry, he said he read everything by Matthew Arnold
>>24702555>I have no brain and I must quibble
>>24702663kill yourself
>>24695982You can ask any arthoe, in undergrad mfa whatever, if she is writing poetry and she will respond in the affirmative and when you ask her what kind it is inevitably free verse dogshit.
