Is poetry objectively more capable of portraying sublime

>>8583802
Yeah, because it can be shown though prosody rather than just using metaphors and shit that can be done in prose too.

Prose is more capable. Poetry is loose thoughts, fragments of ideas. Prose carries the weight of context behind it to give it more power. I think it is harder to write moving prose than moving poetry.

>>8583802
it's not a competition

>>8583840
Doesn't have to be, its just fun to talk about.

Gotta go with prose. Poetry can capture a visceral mood or emotion like you experience it in the moment - intense, but not lasting. Prose captures the lingering thoughts and feelings that define a person. Context and (usually) less vague descriptions gives prose extra weight.

>>8583802
I think its useful to distinguish between the kinds of beauty that are best explicated in prose (coherences of theme and plot and the machinery of a novel are sublime in the purest sense) and the type best conveyed by poetry (which is more directly sensual and pleasure-based)

>Poetry is fragments of ideas
>Prose has less vague descriptions

I can tell /lit/ doesn't read much poetry, lol

>>8583889
Unless you're taking epic poetry into account (which functions in basically the same way as a novel) this is esentially true (charitably interpreting the second statement).

>>8583889
Or they do, and have already come to a conclusion about both.

>>8583893
>epic poetry functions in basically the same way as a novel

Now I *know* /lit/ doesn't read much poetry, lol

>>8583912
>in basically the same way
this is the important part of the sentence. Unless you can provide any examples of epic poetry functioning in a way RADICALLY different from prose fiction (i.e not just saying "but dude it's poetry lmao") then I'm gonna have to assume you're full of shit

If, when you say poetry vs prose, you mean narrative vs lyric, then say that instead. This whole thread is a ridiculous category error.

>>8583922
Weasel words. You know form is important, right?

>>8583931
Obviously, form is important, but in with long-form narrative nature of pic poetry, it slips from dominance (does not become unimportant, but is usurped in importance) and instead the dominant aspects of prose--theme,character etc-- become dominant in the work. Do you disagree with this?

>>8583949
*the long form
*epic not pic

>>8583949
Again, like I said before, you're defining poetry as lyric and prose as narratve. It's a category error that sweeps thousands of years of literature under the carpet (the Iliad is a novel before people even knew how to write, lol).

>>8583925
I second this

>>8583993
It's not sweeping anything under the rug. It's acknowledging the debt that the prose novel has to epic poetry, and thus acknowledging that epic poetry, in the modern realignment of literary forms, occupies an odd space between poetry and prose, where narrative concerns (which has always been the central feature of both prose and the epic poem) are given precedence over the fragmentary, impressionistic concerns of poetry (not just lyric, but even a form like the ballad).

At the end of the day, we're arguing over very minor fine details here, basically semantics, and neither of us is going to "win".

>poetry is fragmentary and impressionistic, and lacks the coherence of narrative, and thus it is not as good

>/lit/

>>8583838
You don't k ow what you are talking about.

>>8584057
Nobody said this was a bad thing. Stop putting words in our mouth, pleb

>>8583925
>This is a ridiculous category error.
Story of my lide desu.

>>8584068
>calls me pleb
>thinks poetry is fragmentary and purely impressionistic

Stop saying idiotic things, then.

File: gass14.png (343KB, 940x747px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 940x747px

>>8583802
>>8583840
BTFO

>>8584083
>poetry
>literally the fragmentation of language into metrical lines.
>has as an obvious effect of this an impressionist aspect
>i'm the idiot for recognising this
Plebby debbie

>>8584103
>poetry is the fragmentation of language into metrical lines
>fragmentation of language

kek

>prose is not impressionistic

lmao

>>8584119
Dude, what you're missing is that all of these elements are present on some level in BOTH poetry and prose. But there is a shifting set of hierarchies where some elements become less dominant and important and others come to the fore-front. Something like Proust might be impressionistic, but this certainly isn't the norm for prose fiction (at least not till modernism)

And could you rephrase your objection to my working definition of poetry. "kek" just doesn't cut it

>>8584146
I'm not missing that, in fact that is my complaint: that people here say "one is X, the other is Y", when actually both can be X and Y and that doesn't make either of them the worse or the less capable. Not only """"""""""""""fragmentation"""""""""""" and an impressionist aesthetic are not particular of poetry, but they are not its main characteristics, or at least not with the former. A fragmentary quality implies lack of coherence and structure, which is not the case with most poetry.

Calling others "pleb" when you bullshit people doesn't cut it either, darling.

>>8584187
With most poetry: i.e. almost all of it, with the exception of bad poetry and poetry that is deliberately fragmentary in order to convey something, which would actually make it essential to is form and structure.

>>8584187
It's obvious he's only read TS Eliot et. al. and thinks all poetry is like that.

>>8584217
And if that were the case, he doesn't understand them very well either. Eliot is one of the most stuctural poets. The "fragmentation" of his poetry is only on a surface level, and serves a biggee purpose.

>>8584230
>only on a surface level
On a surface level or not, it is still present and is integral with the structure and the overall piece.

>>8584217
I'm not gonna claim to be an expert, but I'm well-versed enough to have an opinion. And I vastly prefer Romantic poetry (esp. Keats) to Modernist stuff.

>>8584187
I think we're just using the word fragmentation differently;for me, there is no connotation of lack of structure. I literally just mean "splitting apart", which makes sense as a way of thinking of what poetry does to language. It "fragments" into smaller "pieces" in order to draw closer attention to it. A line of poetry has to be taken on its own before it can be placed into the larger fabric of the poem. With prose, there is an experience of rail-roaded continuity that one doesn't get with poetry. Is this clearer now?

File: farewelltospring.jpg (30KB, 388x271px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 388x271px

>>8583889
no, this place is clueless in general but especially in regards to poetry. holding a discussion about anything related to poetry here is a fruitless effort, i only come here to answer questions.

>>8584103
>>8584230
>>8584244
>>8584250
the mistake you people are making is assuming poetry "does" anything. poetry doesn't fragment anything, and poetry does fragment things. that's why it's poetry and not prose. your ideas of what poetry is are juvenile and under-read.

>>8584371
>fuck all attempts to reasonably define something
thank you postmodernism, you can go now

>>8584381
this has nothing to do with post-modernism and everything to do with reading poetry. for every definition of a poem you have I can give you 100 examples that defy it. poetry is not some niche archaic method of writing pretty words in line of metrical feet under the constraints of a royal form of structure, nor is it the jumbling of sentiment or lack-thereof into a blender and spitting out fractured images into a stanza of free verse. there is no all-encompassing definition of poetry and trying to argue that "poetry" does this or does that is a waste of everyone's time. pick a type of poetry, like some other anonymous suggested. "lyric" versus "narrative" is a much more fruitful method of approaching this discussion.

>>8584402
So poetry doesn't exist then? There is nothing we can broadly say is characteristic of poetry? We have to throw everything out becuase you can shit out a few outliers to prove your point?

>>8584410
what's the point of this thread if we're speaking "broadly" of "poetry"? in that case the answer would obviously be "yes and no", without a doubt and objectively because "poetry" is capable of doing everything prose does and more and "prose" is capable of doing everything "poetry' does and more and this thread is effectively "do u like prose or poetry more lol". stop wasting people's time.
>s-so we can't talk about the broad-but-exclusive characteristics of poetry
so you suggest we narrow down our terms of what poetry is rather than speaking broadly about "poetry"? huh glad we agree.

the only inherent difference in the two is line-breaks and their use.
Poetry is technically more capable, but tends to focus smaller, because it's devices are large and unwieldy. Poetry is hard, basically

>>8585081
I've been writing free-verse and honestly the lines between poetry and prose get so blurred at times I don't even care anymore. The point of both is to convey abstract ideas and themes in ways that are more effective than plain language. The biggest difference, as you said, is structuring. I think if I publish I'll avoid both "poetry" and "prose" in the title.

>>8585199
yeah, but enjambments are a gift from god and probably the only device i more than capable with[spoiler/]