>I hold that a long poem does not exist. I maintain that the phrase, “a long poem,” is simply a flat contradiction in terms
>I need scarcely observe that a poem deserves its title only inasmuch as it excites, by elevating the soul. The value of the poem is in the ratio of this elevating excitement. But all excitements are, through a psychal necessity, transient. That degree of excitement which would entitle a poem to be so called at all, cannot be sustained throughout a composition of any great length. After the lapse of half an hour, at the very utmost, it flags—fails—a revulsion ensues—and then the poem is, in effect, and in fact, no longer such.
> In regard to the “Iliad,” we have, if not positive proof, at least very good reason for believing it intended as a series of lyrics; but, granting the epic intention, I can say only that the work is based in an imperfect sense of art. The modern epic is, of the supposititious ancient model, but an inconsiderate and blindfold imitation. But the day of these artistic anomalies is over. If, at any time, any very long poems were popular in reality—which I doubt—it is at least clear that no very long poem will ever be popular again.
Was he right, /lit/? Are all epic poems a waste of time?
i just shit a bunch of crap
poe was a CUTE i tell you, a CUTE
The way I see it is anyone who would potetnialy write a long poem could potentially do so in such a way that parts of it could be broken and stand alone as their selves, like muscal albums, have songs, symphonies have movements