Poetry is superior to prose and anyone who prefers the latter is an uncultured pleb. No I won't elaborate.
>>25123907Yeah, Rupi Kaur shits all over Melville with her expertise in verse.
>>25123907This is true.See the low iq prose plebs already nonsensically seething: >>25123914
>>25123907>>25123925Trolling outside of /b/ is prohibited.
>>25123907You cannot convince me that this would be made any better by redoing it as a poem.
>>25123907Yeah, but here's the biggest truth nuke: poetry is superior to philosophy and religion
>>25123938That IS a poem
>>25123937Telling the truth is not trolling, low iq prose pleb
I don’t know how to read poetry
>>25123907At their best and compared then yes, but poetry is not automatically better than prose just because it might produce a stronger Sensation, in which case an Autogluckgluck9000 device would reign supreme of both; the Thing being Expressed in either must be Whole and Pure: and if the Poet packages base Content into lofty Form, still it yields to a less affective but higher Content expressed through Prose; in the same way that Music is not higher than both merely because it accesses the Nerves.
>>25123938Good prose and good verse have different aims. It just so happens that poetry's aim is higher>It is, indeed, worthy of remark that all our great poets have been good prose writers, as Chaucer, Spencer, Milton; and this probably arose from their just sense of meter. For a true poet will never confound verse and prose; whereas it is almost characteristic of indifferent prose writers that they should be constantly slipping into scraps of meter.
>>25123956Do you know how to read at all?
>>25123907True
>>25123907So you're a fag, huh?
>>25124012Notice how poetryfags have to dig up criticism from two hundred years ago because no poet has produced significant ideas or verse in at least a century LOL
>>25124105True as this may be, the best poetry outclasses the best prose for the most part, but the best piece of literature I’ve read is in prose, but it’s poetic prose.
>>25124105>no poet has produced significant ideas or verse in at least a centuryStrange criticism. It hasn't even been a hundred years since Yeats' death. Sitwell, Eliot, Doolittle and Cocteau died in the 60s. Celan, Pound, Moore and Neruda died in the 70s. Graves, Beckett and Char died in the 80s. Hughes died in the 90s. And Heaney only died in the last decade. The truth is that, in the 21st century, great prose and great poetry are equally as dead as each other.
>>25123907THIS is the most quintessentially pseudo-intellectual take you fuckers have. Traditional "Look mommy! I'm so in the know!" begging for a pat on the back.There is a reason everyone hates poetry. There is a reason society evolved past the use of it for lyricism and even hip-hop music can serve as a more natural, organic sounding of the rhyming than faggoty affectations of tightly adhering to lambic pentameter. Poetry in its traditional form is droning, repetitive, anti-natural and boring as fuck. Poetry as it tries to become more experimental is formless, ugly, and just shows incapability to attaining its former style. This is why the only surviving poetry of the 21st Century is just Bukowski-lite Rupi Kaur trash, since Zoomers are simply not going to learn to write "proper" poetry and specially, no one cares for reading it.Where can we even find verse in literature today? In slam poetry? In Rupi Kaur instagram trash? Does it have a place in the modern world? The confessional poet vociferating their emotions even needs a form anymore in a world where people just turn on a camera and die of spontaneous emotional combustion in front of it? Or is the self-eviscerating of your hysterics on social media a form of expression (not art) that has replaced it? On a purely mechanical level, people like Eminem, people above average rappers have transformed what would otherwise be poetry into the perfect evolution that makes it obsolete. More impactful, organic, but even better - the rhymes are actually musical, the wordplay can be blatant or subtle, the musicality of it comes naturally, instinctive, intuitive.Everything that poetry can presume to aim for prose consistently does better, from simply embellishing the physical world to portraying the inner, psychological-emotional world, to transmitting ideas or simply just weaving beautiful language. That is why every other great literary mind being celebrated since the tail end of the 1800s has been a novelist primarily rather than a poet. Verse in and of itself is a masturbatory exercise of form and style that conforms the substance of what could be delivered in prose in a self-contained mutilated piece of pretentious verse.The best prose is philosophy, theater and poetry itself enmeshed.The best poetry is prose with its wings clipped, and music with its vocal chords cut.
>>25124105>>25124129Uhh, all modern literature is trash, whether prose or poetry. Are you really using the 'contemporary culture is progress' argument? LOL, poetry haters are fans of contemporary prose. It's expected for them to be retarded, but I didn't expect them to be THAT retarded. /lit/ is a classicist board. We recognise that the best authors are by and large hundreds of years old. Take your contemporaneous taste to reddit.
>>25124105just goes to show you:they got it right
>>25124129I get what you’re trying to say, but >>25124137 is right, you’re using shitty examples to make your argument. At least refer to the best of both prose and poetry if you want to be taken seriously, because as it stands, you’ve essentially just told us you hate poetry written in the 21st century and that you like rap music. Also calling poetry pretentious is just an insular non argument. I actually prefer prose myself, especially when it manages to blend poetry and philosophy into a cohesive whole. However, you’re not effective in arguing why you think it’s better yourself.
>>25124102I hate Americans and their braindead idea that poetry and all high culture is automatically gay or feminine and therefore not worth pursuing. It's no wonder our culture is utter lowest common denominator garbage. But I guess that's what you get with mass democratization and capitalism.
>>25123907>says OP in prose
>>25124129The true division between prose and poetry is that the latter captures and transmits spontaneous emotion while prose works are almost always highly contrived and filtered through infinite deliberation, diluted by the things you claim give it it's unique value: embellishments, communications of ideas, explorations of the psyche, and all those other nonartistic qualities that generally make novels unbearable. Prose is great for storytelling but that's ironically the one strength of the medium that prosefags deem below them.
>>25124129Poetry was traditionally sung or recited. Rap is just a unique form of modern poetry and I'm surprised you failed to even consider this when typing out your worthless diatribe.
>>25124137>"Experimental and contemporary poetry are even worse than traditional poetry, slam poetry is trash, and hysterical zoomers are retarded">Are you really using the 'contemporary culture is progress' argument?Great reading buddy, maybe stick to Dr. Seuss though, he's less challenging than the big leagues.>muh hivemind says old = goodThen maybe get a mind of your own and stop begging for approval from failed english majors all day on obscure imageboards. Maybe then you'll have a personal relationship with either prose or poetry, rather than a masturbatory affectation, and get over the adolescent phase of pretending to like old black and white movies to impress your turtleneck wearing friends.>>25124147The post makes as much mention of "traditional" poetry as it does to 21st Century pseudo-poetry slop, and why its mechanics are an archaic technique that we grew out of.>refer to the best of both prose and poetryJust because this intrigued me. Try for yourself to compare the storytelling of the Chimney Sweeper by William Blake and tell me its story isn't forcefully clipped to fit the form of verse, and that at it's height it's still something that a prose writer like Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens could deliver much better, and that actual musicals in more modern times have been able to tell, in verse, like "It's the Hard Knock Life" song from Annie, simply because it's not stuck to poetic meter. "London" also by Blake could equally be compared to the same authors, or maybe Balzac, in a more contemporary sense maybe Patrick Suskind, and you know the painting of it would be more immersive, the emotion mor tangible, if not stuck to fitting poetic form.When I read The Cold Heaven by Yeats, a poet that even I believe is a fantastic wordsmith and makes great use of embellishing of image, I immediately think of The Dead by Joyce, and I find that while the poem is not bad by any means, the form gets so much more in the way of delivering emotion. It feels like a short story clipped, reframed, cut from a newspaper and reorganized. It reminds me of Tolstoy (Ivan Ilyich), of Dostoevsky in general, but with the prose authors I feel it flow much more naturally without being chopped into arbitrary pieces for stylistic flair.>>25124163>diluted by the things you claim give it it's unique value: embellishments, communications of ideas, explorations of the psyche, and all those other nonartistic qualities that generally make novels unbearable.I said BOTH poetry and prose do these, but that prose achieves it best. Learn to read.>>25124172>I wonder why he mentioned that modern music lyricism doesn't use poetry and then compared to hip-hop? He must be unaware...
>>25124190What an embarrassing post.>Great reading buddy, maybe stick to Dr. Seuss though, he's less challenging than the big leagues.You literally said rap has improved upon poetry. Your whole claim is that modern culture has moved past the need for traditional poetry, in other words a progressive view of culture. I don't know why you're acting like I misrepresented you.>Then maybe get a mind of your ownAnon, being a retard isn't the same as thinking for yourself. You're doing the literary equivalent of believing in flat earth theory. You might as well say that accumulation of scientific knowledge over thousands of years is all bunk, that you're smarter than them. I never said older authors are intrinsically better, I never said you have to agree with an opinion because it's old. I am only claiming that you should have respect for the accumulated knowledge of tradition, and that we are living in an era of artistic decadence. To any intelligent person, it is astoundingly obvious that the greatest artists or writers will in the majority be older, because of that wisdom of tradition in sorting quality, because of the higher aesthetic standards of the old world, and because history encompasses so many more writers and artists than our short period of time called 'modern'. Or are you too imbecilic to understand that?>adolescent phase of pretending to like old black and white moviesYou have to be the dumbest poster on /lit/. There's nothing highbrow or pretentious about black and white movies, they're only difficult to watch if you're an social media addicted child.>Try for yourself to compare the storytelling of the Chimney Sweeper by William Blake and tell me its story isn't forcefully clipped to fit the form of verseThe entire story is defined by its verse. If you were to stretch it out into prose, its power would be lost and the very simple story and imagery would become meagre and insignificant. Your problem is that you've essentially refused to intellectually age with traditional artistic forms and instead just assumed if you can't understand it instinctively then it's not worth your time. William Blake is a perfect example of the value of traditional verse forms, because he was also the first advocate for free verse in the English language, insisting that the rhythm should be able to vary with the subject within a single poem, which makes it all the more significant when he does choose to use a regular metre. The simple subject matter of the Chimney Sweeper requires a simple metre. Btw, plenty of modern song writers continually fall into traditional metrical models, include iambic pentameter, because traditional metre isn't an arbitrarily chosen sound, it's the rhythms most natural to be sung in our language. You just don't know anything about poetry, or even about prose, and that's why your opinions are completely worthless. No one cares about your vibes based assumptions, you're a retard that doesn't belong on /lit/.
Poetry post 70s, or actually post Proust, could be anything, including esp. novels rife with "lyrical" narration.OP's thesis and the term poetry is meaningless without further qualification.
>>25124227The line has been blurred, but there is still a major distinction between poetic prose and prosaic poetry. No one has ever claimed that Proust or Joyce are poetry.
>>25124226>I don't know why you're acting like I misrepresented you.I don't particularly give a fuck about the view that "progress being good" is inherently either a good or bad view, but it's interesting how it's an autistic fixation of yours that you force upon my original post. The original post mostly criticizes poetry for in itself being mechanically inorganic, anti-natural, wooden, yadda yadda, and uses the fact that these archaic inorganic techniques fell out of style for more organic techniques as something positive.The same post immediately also makes arguments about the zoomer's lack literacy and the internet's replacing of art as expression for internet emotional volatility as something negative, which in itself is a critique of the modern state of literature and art.Your misinterpretation is in your autistic hyper focus on "progress bad", which doesn't even matter.>You're doing the literary equivalent of believing in flat earth theory. You might as well say that accumulation of scientific knowledge over thousands of years is all bunk, that you're smarter than them.Your retarded argument here is that "it has been lauded before, so through appeal to authority it is automatically above criticism and nothing will come to evolve from it that can improve on its techniques", which is exactly what can be expected from a fundamentally adolescent mind trying its hand at pseudo-intellectualism. Parroting what others have said before, quoting, name-dropping, adhering to the list others have compiled for you, memorizing word by word of others' thoughts and bam! An intellectual is made!>I never said older authors are intrinsically better, I never said you have to agree with an opinion because it's old.You said exactly that in your first response, and right now by using limp-wristed fallacies to try and compare it to science like a retard.>To any intelligent person, it is astoundingly obvious that the greatest artists or writers will in the majority be older, because of that wisdom of tradition in sorting quality, because of the higher aesthetic standards of the old worldI know you're probably literally 15 years old, so you were born in 2010, probably just discovering your first twitter accounts with a statue profile pic, but this is fucking embarrassing. This kind of "uhhh, the past had better artists because, uhh, they just had higher standards!" is the kind of simplistic, basic binary thinking that you expect from a mental child wearing their father's shoes and coat. Every century in the history of literature has seen violent transformations in the medium, the "accumulated quality" doesn't come from some magical "tradition in sorting quality", that's how a 10 years old communicates. It comes from constant experiment and invention. The modern novel was an invented format married to the popularity of enlightenment philosophy and that was TWO HUNDRED years before modernism and post-modernism ever occurred.cont. 1/2
>>25124226>There's nothing highbrow or pretentious about black and white moviesThere will be when you make your chart of favorite films for your twitter friends to give you a pat on the back, including plenty of Ingmar Bergman and Tarkovski, which you probably already do with books.>If you were to stretch it out into prose, its power would be lost and the very simple story and imagery would become meagre and insignificant. I like how essentially subjective this argument is yet you try to criticize me for being subjective, calling my argument "vibes based assumptions". Why would the power be lost in prose? Why can't a minimalistic style beat be used for the same effect in prose? Why would it meander and become stretched out? Why can't it become more immersive with the more versatile rhythms of prose? It can go either way, but WHY is it your way?>William Blake is a perfect example of the value of traditional verse forms, because he was also the first advocate for free verse in the English language, insisting that the rhythm should be able to vary with the subject within a single poemAlmost as if he is part of the evolution from poetry's inorganic forms into something new, just like Rimbaud, just like Walt Whitman, and everyone else after them. Crazy how that works>Btw, plenty of modern song writers continually fall into traditional metrical models, include iambic pentameter, because traditional metre isn't an arbitrarily chosen sound, it's the rhythms most natural to be sung in our language.This is another hilarious take you probably genuinely believe because you read it somewhere so might as well. There is no "natural rhythm to be sung in english", music nowadays is much freer from standard meters, even if they can be found here and there. 2/2
>>25124190>no actual response, just ad-hominemI accept your concession. Prosepseuds forever btfo
>>25124319>>25124339>archaic inorganic techniques fell out of style for more organic techniques as something positive.And yet, such a ridiculous view as this is only possible for someone who is outright opposed to the idea that tradition possesses any degree of wisdom beyond what can be gleamed from our own lives, which is by necessity, whether you like it or not, a progressive stance. I never said you believed everything in the world was progressing.>Your retarded argument here is that "it has been lauded before, so through appeal to authority it is automatically above criticism and nothing will come to evolve from it that can improve on its techniques",No it's not. I would like you to provide an example of me making the argument. You would be best not to make assumptions if you're going to keep being this reductive and stupid. You're far too excitable for someone who knows so little.>You said exactly that in your first responseThen go ahead and quote it, lol.>I know you're probably literally 15 years oldAre you? Probably half the time someone is called underage on 4chan it's being done by someone underage themselves. You're so high effort, so obnoxious and overeager to prove your own intelligence, it wouldn't surprise anyone if you were indeed a teenager.You didn't respond to all three point I made in explaining why older artists are usually better. Firstly, the simple truth is that artistic standards were in fact higher in the past, and the consequence of that decline can be seen in the fact that properly speaking art no longer exists. There are no masterpieces of prose or poetry, painting or music, being created anymore. We're living in a technological age with no need for art. It can easily be demonstrated that the art created centuries ago was of a much greater complexity and/or artfulness in construction than what passes for 'art' among the popular tastes today. Secondly, 'violent transformations' is a rather ridiculous description of the movement from Chaucer to Shakespeare, or from Giotto to Michelangelo. What is important is that there was a consistent tradition, underlining and fermenting these artistic developments. If you want to talk about simplistic, basic binary thinking, that contemporary assumption that all art creation is just due to 'free experimentation' and not rigorous mastery, just due to individuals in a vacuum and not cultural forces spanning hundreds and sometimes thousands of years, is an example. And I don't see any 'violent transformations' in contemporary art, I just see the degeneration of traditional art to the point of brain-numbing primitivity. E.g., the dependence of every pop song on Western harmony.
>>25124537Btw, when I referred to tradition 'sorting quality', I meant that centuries of critical analysis have sorted out and identified the most talented artists, and forgotten the mediocre. It does not always work out fairly, but by and large it does. We do not now agree with Vasari's critique of early Renaissance art, but we do agree with his adulation of Michelangelo. Most of the most esteemed artists in history deserve their place. You are certainly not wiser than Vasari in painting, nor are you wiser than Coleridge in poetry. Or do you lack any restraint on your hubris? As for my third point, that history encompasses an almost immeasurably larger period of time, and therefore number of artists, and therefore number of great artists, than the modern, you didn't respond to it. I suppose because its consequences are so obvious you had to ignore it.>Why would the power be lost in prose?I'm presuming you really know nothing about rhythm at all, because this is such a stupid question. The whole effect of this particular poem is derived from its simplicity, every element bearing the associations of childish purity and naivety. Whether it's in the simple rhythm (roughly anapestic: And he OPened the COFFins & SET them all FREE) and rhyme scheme (aabb), the short sentences of which fitting the speech of a child, or it's in the fairy tale-like images, which are pulled into contrast by those short sentences. All of this forms a tightly knit unity. To lineate this like prose would be pointless, because the rhythm and rhyme remain markers of the lines. If you mean to rewrite it as prose, without the regular rhythm and rhyme, then the whole effect would be lost. When people speak of 'prose rhythm' it is something completely different from poetic rhythm. Prose, no matter how musical or semi-metrical, does not throw the sounds of language into sharp relief. If a rhyme, or metrical pattern, or alliteration, is present in prose, either we do not notice it (because it is not visually emphasised by lineation or aurally emphasised through regular use), or we briefly notice it but it is less apparent, or it becomes unbearably obvious, slows down the pace and ruins the entire point of prose. Prose rhythm is much more subtle and less powerful than that, and thus incapable of reproducing the effect of this poem.>Almost as if he is part of the evolution from poetry's inorganic forms into something newThe assumption that the history of poetry is a progress from the inorganic to the organic is far more stupid and overly simplistic than the assumption that Blake was an intelligent artist that understood the distinct purposes served by traditional forms. You've created a gigantic coping mechanism to justify your own ignorance of art.>There is no "natural rhythm to be sung in english",It's difficult to think of a pop song that doesn't, over longer sentences, use metrical rhythm, because it is much easier to set to music language that has a beat.
>>25124537>believing that something can be improved upon from its technical limitations is completely disregarding tradition and any wisdom the past generations have hadEven if my view of traditional poetry can be considered radical, this is an insanely reductive thing to say.It's reductive thinking like this that expose that you're probably a teenager, or at least not older than 20.>No it's not. I would like you to provide an example of me making the argument.It's interesting how you decide to compare it to science itself and then pretend as if you didn't argue exactly that. You compare disregarding the past tradition of poetry with being a flat earther, so in a way for you those traditions are tried and true to the level of being objective reality itself, as if down to a concrete science nothing else could possibly work. And the ONLY backing up for that argument is that one can't presume to think they know better than the "accumulation of scientific knowledge through thousands of years"You made exactly that argument. Because you make imbecilic arguments. Because your thoughts are terribly simplistic and rely on "It's what all the smart guys I've been pretending to have read say is good so it's good!"It is this kinda shit that leaves explicit that you are a teenager.>Then go ahead and quote it, lol.You say exactly this:"Uhh, all modern literature is trash, whether prose or poetry. Are you really using the 'contemporary culture is progress' argument? LOL, poetry haters are fans of contemporary prose. It's expected for them to be retarded, but I didn't expect them to be THAT retarded. /lit/ is a classicist board. We recognise that the best authors are by and large hundreds of years old. Take your contemporaneous taste to reddit."then this" You're doing the literary equivalent of believing in flat earth theory. You might as well say that accumulation of scientific knowledge over thousands of years is all bunk, that you're smarter than them."IMMEDIATE NEXT SENTENCE"I never said older authors are intrinsically better, I never said you have to agree with an opinion because it's old.">You're so high effort, so obnoxious and overeager to prove your own intelligence, it wouldn't surprise anyone if you were indeed a teenager.Crazy, I've said that to you four times already. Would you like me to quote it as well?>properly speaking art no longer existsThat is IF you hold the utopic view of the much less literate past as being full of people "properly" speaking of art. The world is staffed with peasants even today, through all of history, and even if most people are consuming entertainment media, at least we have either a comparable or bigger proportion of people analyzing whatever high art we still have academically than ever before.>There are no masterpieces of prose or poetry, painting or music, being created anymoreSo subjective it's just not worth getting in a smug-off about it.1/2
>poetry>prosenigga who caresit's icing on the cakedownload the information straight into my brain
>>25124539>We're living in a technological age with no need for art.When you say these extremely reductive things, the most tragic thing is that you don't even realize how funny they are. How teenage minded it is to say these dichotomic idiocies, like technology inherently replaces or removes art, this shit is so youtube comments on a piss poor video essay.> It can easily be demonstrated that the art created centuries ago was of a much greater complexity and/or artfulness in construction than what passes for 'art' among the popular tastes today. This kind of shit that no longer has to do with our autistic squabbles about poetry. It's so much the simplistic talk of a high schooler perceiving art. "Back then things were more complex!" is such a normie pseud take.Think on this: in the 1600s it was all plays and poems all the way down. The 1700s invented the novel and mixed it up with some enlightenment individualistic philosophy, it was not just a violent reshaping of writing and literature, but of thought itself. These evolutions didn't stop until the 20th with modernism, post-modernism, literature is a mutant creature.> And I don't see any 'violent transformations' in contemporary art, I just see the degeneration of traditional art to the point of brain-numbing primitivity.That's the general normie take on one facet of abstract expressionism. Museum art these days is all fuck but the general world's perception of it is so pop-ragebait that no one really has points about it other than "it's all shit because it's smears of paint!">E.g., the dependence of every pop song on Western harmony.Whoa, Mr. Tradition! I thought the chromatic scale was a great little piece of tradition to maintain!>As for my third point, that history encompasses an almost immeasurably larger period of time, and therefore number of artists, and therefore number of great artists, than the modern, you didn't respond to it.Do I need to say that this is yet another one of your bizarre dichotomies? And that the whole lumping of the entire "past" against the supposed "present" ignores discrepancies among decades and among centuries and among artists lacking any consensus?Now the entire paragraph about how prose rhythm is stylistically inferior or different from poetry's is just pure subjectivity. Exactly that has been created in prose the world over, by throwing a minimalistic stylistic beat, to a sense of almost mathematical rhythm to sentences in a chapter to all sorts of plays with language, rhyme and tempo. It has been done by Joyce, by Hemingway, by Faulkner, by Virginia Woolf.>The assumption that the history of poetry is a progress from the inorganic to the organicFace it or not, it is precisely that. From the rigid sonnet structure of the 1600s to more elasticity from the Blakes and Rimbauds of the world, to Walt Whitmans almost free verse, to Bukowski. From the beer to the keys to the car to the tree.
>words with rhyme and meter are admirably organic when in rap music>but when not in rap music all of a sudden the only organic way to express feelings is to avoid meter and rhyme>Because reasons!>I say this as a defender of the novel, possibly the most artificial and isolating artform there is, the production and consumption of which has absolutely nothing organic about itEnlightening stuff
Poetic prose is where it’s at, best of both worlds. So you guys arguing could just reach a compromise that way
Reading Blake’s Jerusalem right now, it’s pretty schizophrenic but man is it good. If only Britain had become what Blake envisioned it as and not the shithole it is today>If I should dare to lay my finger on a grain of sand In way of vengeance, I punish the already punish'd. O whom Should I pity if I pity not the sinner who is gone astray? O Albion, if thou takest vengeance, if thou revengest thy wrongs, Thou art for ever lost!
>>25124602>this is an insanely reductive thing to say.You're not saying that 'traditional art can be improved upon', you're saying that traditional art, or at least poetry, is fundamentally flawed and arbitrarily defined. That's a big difference.Do you really want to go around in fifty circles with you accusing me of saying things I didn't say? You stupidly misunderstood what I said. All you can claim is that 'but but I know what you REALLY meant', but at the end of the day I didn't say what you think I really meant. So you resort to accusing me of pretending I meant something different to what I said. This is embarrassing. The phrases 'all modern literature is trash' and 'I never said older authors are intrinsically better' are not in contradiction. You have to accept that fact.>the utopic viewAnother cliched thought. Periods of artistic renaissance are not primarily determined by total population or by the population of 'educated' people. It is a matter of quality, not quantity. There's nothing 'utopic' about recognising that there is a distinction in refinement and aesthetic sensitivity between the education of 18th century and 21st century composers.>Think on thisWhat for? You're not saying anything, just that 'people in the 1600s wrote poetry and plays', and 'people in the 1700s started writing novels and following Enlightenment philosophy'. Who do you expect to be impressed by historical and literary observations this retardedly simple? No one said literature hadn't evolved over hundreds of years. What point are you even trying to make?>Whoa, Mr. Tradition!It was an example of how popular art is no longer original, and at the same time that traditional artistic developments were much more advanced. Would you like to offer any refutation?>ignores discrepanciesI was demonstrating that the greatest artistic achievements belong to the past, not that they all resemble each other in style, you moron. How can you possibly think any of this information is relevant?>Exactly that has been created in prose the world overAgain, you're proving you have no idea what poetry is. Instead of responding to what I identified in the poem that couldn't be reproduced in prose, and why it would be futile to attempt it, you're fallaciously smoothing over all differences by just repeating yourself, 'a wide array of rhythms can be used in prose', yes, no one denied that, but (to repeat my response) they're not metrical rhythms, unless used very briefly (whether heard or not heard, whereas in poetry it's impossible not to hear the rhythm), or used to bad effect, or is just poetry lineated like prose. You also fail to identify how prose is superior to free verse.>rigid sonnet structureA form defines and is the consequence of its content. The sonnet form was creatively inspiring to 16th century poets, not restrictive.
Who IS the greatest poet? And how would they handle writing a novel?
>>25125226For me, it's either Homer or Holderlin
>>25124129>Poetry in its traditional form is droning, repetitive, anti-natural and boring as fuck. Poetry as it tries to become more experimental is formless, ugly, and just shows incapability to attaining its former style.this is the most retarded shit I've ever read, you've either never read a good poem in your entire life or you simply lack the faculty to appreciate it. tragic in either case.
>>25125226Blake, then Hölderlin, then Rimbaud, then Milton.
