>Any poet worth his salt can write good prose. Not any prose

Weird but probably true. James Joyce's poetry is terrible for example, even though he wrote better prose than any poet ever did

>>9951125
Just buckle up and learn meter you lazy ass

>>9951134
eh, FW is definitely poetry, and Ulysses is arguable. I think he just couldn't figure out linebreaks.

>>9951125
100% percent bullshit. When the fuck do you ever hear anyone talk about Coleridge or Shelley's prose? Never because they're were better poets.

>>9951178
Because good poets are remember for their poetry; prose is ephemeral.

>>9951125

Filth, Cop and Soundtracks for the Blind are awesome albums

i believe a few poets couldn't write prose for shit

>>9951178
People talk about their prose works all the time. They're considered very influential literary critics/theorists in addition to great poets

>>9951178
Both Coleridge and Shelley have prose in the Oxford Anthology edited by Harold Bloom and Lionel Trilling. Canonical smackdown achieved.

>>9951125
Bullshit.

>>9951125
>worth his salt
Hurr murr, no true Scotsman.

>>9951125
Different skill-set, so I'd question the "poets can write prose" side just as much. But good poetry is much harder than decent prose.

>>9952570
What was the point of this?

>>9951125
why the fuck does he look like hes covered in dirt

Poetry is the higher art form so it makes sense in that 'one is easier than the other', but I don't think there's any deep technical or literary reason for it if thats what you're getting at...

File: ABcrop.jpg (168KB, 1000x946px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1000x946px

>>9954705
Because Clark Ashton Smith sticking in that "worth his salt" gives him a "no true Scotsman" answer to any example that doesn't fit his maxim. "Rossetti's prose was shit" "Well, Rossetti wasn't a poet worth his salt" and so on. It makes his statement useless.